The Power of Everyday Politics: How Vietnamese Peasants Transformed National Policy 9781501722011

Citation preview

The Power of Everyday Politics

The Power of Everyday Politics How Vietnamese Peasants Transformed National Policy BENEDICT

J. TRIA

Cornell University Press

KERKVLIET

ITHAcA AND LONDoN

Copyright © 2005 by Cornell University All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or parts thereof, must not be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Cornell University Press, Sage House, 512 East State Street, Ithaca, New York 14850. First published 2005 by Cornell University Press Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kerkvliet, Benedict J. The power of everyday politics : how Vietnamese peasants transformed national policy I Benedict J. Kerkvliet. p. em. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN o-8014-4301-6 (cloth : alk. paper) I. Collectivization of agriculture---Vietnam. 2. Agriculture and state-Vietnam. 3. Peasantry-Vietnam. I. Title. HD1492.V 5K47 2005 338. 1'8597-dc22 2004019430 Printed in the United States of America Cornell University Press strives to use environmentally responsible suppliers and materials to the fullest extent possible in the publishing of its books. Such materials include vegetable-based, low-VOC inks and acid-free papers that are recycled, totally chlorine-free, or partly composed of nonwood fibers. For further information, visit our website at www.cornellpress.cornell.edu. Cloth printing

10

9

7

6

4

2

To all my teachers in public schools (Great Falls, Montana), college (Whitman), graduate school (University ofWisconsin, Madison), and later years (University of Hawai'i, Manoa), especially (in chronological order)

Margaret M. Walsh Inez Anderson Urban F Isaacs Svein Oksenholt John J Stifano.ff Robert Fluno Robert VVhitner

Henry Hart Fred R. Von der Mehden Hanna Fenichel Pitken John R. W Smail James C. Scott Manfred Henningsen Nguyen Kim Thu

Contents

List of Tables and fllustrations Acknowledgments x

viii

1.

Introduction

2.

Theorizing Everyday Politics in Collective Farming

3. Building on Wobbly Foundations, 1955-1961 4. Coping and Shoring Up, 1961-1974

79

5. Collapsing from Within, 1974-1981

143

8

37

6. Dismantling Collective Farming, Expanding the Family Farm, 1981-1990 190 7. Conclusion

234

Appendixes 1. Tables and graph 245 2. Distribution to Collective Cooperative Members

255

Vietnamese Glossary 261 Selected Places and Terms 269 Abbreviations 273 Bibliography 277 Index 299

Vll

Tables and Illustrations

TABLES

r. Food production in the Red River delta and all of northern Vietnam, 1939, 1954-1994

246

2. Labor exchange groups in northern Vietnam, 1955-1960

248

3. Agricultural collective cooperatives in northern Vietnam, 1955-1960 248 4· Proportion of northern Vietnam agrarian households in collective cooperatives, 1960-1981 249 5. Consumption of staple and other food by collective cooperative peasants in northern Vietnam, 1959-1974, 1976-1980 250 6. Households per agricultural collective cooperative and annual production per capita in northern Vietnam, 1959-1980 251 7. Income sources of an average collective cooperative member

252

8. What is left for an average paddy producer in Red River delta collective cooperatives prior to and during the product contract arrangement 253

GRAPH

r. Food per capita relative to the size of a collective cooperative Vlll

245

Illustrations MAPS I.

Northern Vietnam, circa 1990

47

2. Provinces in and around the Red River delta, circa 1990

48

1x

Acknowledgments

My journey to complete this book benefited from timely directions, assistance, and encouragement. It would be impossible to thank all who helped. Here I name only some of them. In Vietnam, my greatest debts are to the Trung Tam Nghien Cuu Viet Nam va Giao Luu Van Hoa (Center for Vietnamese and Intercultural Studies) of the Hanoi National University, especially its director, Phan Huy Le, and deputy director, Doan Thien Thuat. Le Van Sinh and Nguyen Quang Ngoc, two faculty members associated with the center, worked assiduously with me during numerous interviews with villagers and other informants. Through their support and companionship, these gentlemen enhanced my work immeasurably. Others with the center helped me on many occasions, especially Nguyen Van Chinh, Phan Dai Doan, Vo Minh Giang, Dang Xuan Khang, Nguyen Dinh Le, Nguyen Van Phong, Phan Phuong Thao, and Dinh Trung Kien. I also thank Phung Huu Phu, rector of the university's College of Social Sciences and Humanities during the 1990s, and Bui Phung, Nguyen Anh Que, and Nguyen Thi Thuan at the university's Vietnamese Language Faculty, where I continued my study of the nation's beautiful language. I am grateful to the director of Vietnam's National Archives Number 3, Nguyen Thi Man, and to its staff for allowing me to begin reading records in late 1995 just after the archives were moved to a new location. I am also thankful to Vietnam's National Library in Hanoi for its rewarding, invaluable collection. At various times, Vietnamese researchers who have published on agricultural collectivization kindly explained aspects of their work. I am parX

Acknowledgments

xi

ticularly grateful to Chu Huu Quy, Chu Van Lam, Dang Phong, Dao The Tuan, Nguyen Huu Tien, Phi Van Ba, and Tran Due. Others in and around Hanoi who aided my work ar~ Due Thong, Nguyen Thi Minh Hien, Nguyen Thi Tuyet, Pham Thu Lan, Pham Van Hoc, Phan Van Hung, and Tuong Lai. Among the most memorable times in my research were conversations with villagers in the Red River delta, especially in subdistricts where I spent the most time: Da Ton, Dao Due, Nghiem Xuyen, Quat Luu, Tam Canh, and Tien Thang. I am also grateful to the people of Binh Minh, Dung Tien, Dai Kim, Kim Lan, Tam Hung, Thanh Liet, Van Hoang, and Van Nhan for sharing their knowledge and experiences. I am profoundly thankful to Nguyen Kim Thu at the University of Hawai'i, where in 1989-199I I began to get serious about studying Vietnam. She made it her project to teach me more Vietnamese. Others at the university who were especially encouraging and helpful include Bui Phung, Steve O'Harrow, Kristin Pelzer, and Truong Buu Lam. The Australian National University's Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, which I joined in 1992, provided an enormous boost. Thanks to the school's resources and research environment, I made several trips to Vietnam, devoted two or three days a week largely to my own work, and drew heavily on the university's fine library and the nearby National Library of Australia. Librarians Yen Musgrove and Dorothea Polonyi have been especially kind. I am also grateful to members of the Department of Political and Social Change, especially X. L. Ding, Bev Fraser, John Gillespie, Russell Heng, Natalie Hicks, David Koh, Allison Ley, Claire Smith, Drew Smith, Carl Thayer, and Thaveeporn Vasavakul. Others at the ANU who have helped me include Anita Chan, Oanh Collins, Jim Fox, Andrew Hardy, Nguyen Nghia Bien, Merle Ricklefs, Philip Taylor, Ton That Quynh Du, and Jon Unger. My thanks also to Jenny Sheehan for preparing the maps and graph. Adam Fforde shared with me his library and insights on Vietnam while also sharply criticizing my analysis. Shortly after moving to Canberra, my wife and I were lucky to meet Le Thi Ngan, Phan Dinh The, and Phan Dinh Thay. Initially as students, then as colleagues and dear friends, they greatly enhanced my study of Vietnam. The individuals at the ANU to whom I have the largest debt of gratitude are David Marr and Pham Thu Thuy. David, an eminent historian of Vietnam, has been a mentor, colleague, friend, verbal jousting partner, and critical reader of my manuscripts, including one for this book. Working with him has been an unforgettable experience. Pham Thu Thuy has helped me plow through Vietnamese newspapers and articles. In addition to ben-

xu

Acknowledgments

efiting from her research assistance, I have learned much from Thuy and her husband, Ngo Van Khoa, about Vietnamese language and culture. Thuy is a shining star of enlightenment about her native land. As always, Jim Scott has been a constant source of encouragement. He and Thomas Sikor made insightful comments on the book manuscript, some of which I have been able to incorporate. One of the anonymous readers for Cornell University Press gave particularly helpful suggestions for sharpening the analysis. I subsequently learned that reader was David Elliott and I can now thank him in print for his perceptive remarks. I also thank Cornell University Press, especially Roger Haydon, for taking an interest in the manuscript and efficiently seeing it through to publication, and Karen Laun and Jane Marie Todd for their copyediting. Many others have given me leads, shared their materials, or commented on draft chapters. Foremost among them is Melinda Tria Kerkvliet, my partner in research and other aspects of life and my best friend. Others include David Boselie, Alasdair Bowie, David Elliott, Mai Elliott, Brian Fegan, Martin Grossheim, Bertrand de Hartingh, John Kleinen, Erik Kuhonta, Jonathan London, Ardeth Maung Thawnghmung, Ngo Vinh Long, Shaun Malarney, Kim Ninh, Steve Seneque, John Sidel, Benoit de Treglode, and Jayne Werner. There's a saying in Vietnam: "As you eat the fruit, remember who planted the tree" (an qua nho ke trong cay). Since I have long been eating the fruit of knowledge and learning, I would like to remember my teachers. With deep respect and gratitude, I dedicate this book to them. BEN KERKVLIET

Canberra, A. C. T.

The Power of Everyday Politics

CHAPTER

I

Introduction

Between 1958 and 1961, the Communist Party government ofVietnam collectivized land in the northern half of the then divided country. It insisted that in this primarily agrarian society, collective farming was central to creating socialism. In 1975, after the epic war against the United States and for reunification had finally ended, the government started to collectivize agriculture in the southern half of the country as well. What is startling, however, is that in the late 1980s the government reversed course. It authorized the redistribution of agricultural land to village households and the end to the centrally planned economy. Collective farming was no longer policy. In this book I analyze the two processes in northern Vietnam-building collective farming and dismantling it. I show that the first occurred rapidly but the second evolved after the end of the war. Central to that evolution was villagers' widespread behavior that was at odds with how authorities wanted collective farming done. A major reason why the government did a 180-degree policy turn was the weakening and eventual collapse from within of the collective farming cooperatives into which people had been organized. The policy change was less about dissolving collective farming and more about approving what was well under way in many places and had already occurred in some. Put simply, decollectivization started locally, in the villages, and was largely initiated by villagers; national policy followed.

2

The Power of Everyday Politics

Themes

cif the

Book

From the early 1960s, the communist government, local leaders, and villagers were absorbed in struggles over the shape and content of the collective farming cooperatives. 1 Those struggles intensified in the second half of the 1970s. National government and party officials struggled to get villagers to farm collectively with diligence and enthusiasm. They also strove to turn local officials into dedicated cooperative leaders. Villagers struggled to make a living while dealing with the reality of collective farming. Most had been wary about collective farming from the beginning and became more skeptical as the promised better life failed to come. They tried to minimize the cooperative's claim on their labor and to maximize their household-based production. Some local officials worked hard to implement central authorities' directives; some accommodated villagers' concerns; many did both. Some used their positions for their own gain, paying little attention to national directives and villagers' objections. The lack of economic incentives for members is a common reason why agricultural collectives have not functioned well elsewhere. It certainly was a problem in Vietnam. In addition, however, serious political shortcomings plagued Vietnam's collective farming. The collective cooperatives were primarily creations of the central government. They did not grow out of villagers' initiatives to address shared adversities, hence they began without much commitment on the part of their members. Insufficient trust among peasants also undermined collective farming, particularly after the cooperatives were enlarged to incorporate several villages. Poor governance was another significant shortcoming. Local officials were supposed to run the cooperatives in a transparent manner. Many did not. Corruption was often intractable. Consequently, cooperative members frequently had little confidence that leaders were trustworthy, honest, or fair. The war against the United States and for reunification of the country (early I96os-1975) affected the rise and fall of collective farming. National defense was one of the communist government's justifications for collective cooperatives in the late 1950s. Initially that rationale meant little to northern villagers because their region was still relatively peaceful. But when the war escalated in the mid-1960s, it became a major factor. Many villagers who were bombed by U.S. planes and had relatives and friends in the armed 1. The term "collective farming cooperative" reflects the fact that the organization was not a simple cooperative. It featured collective ownership of land and other vital resources, collective production, and collective distribution of what members produced. I usually shorten the expression to "collective cooperative" or just "cooperative," however.

Introduction

3

forces were motivated to make the collective cooperatives work as well as possible in hopes their efforts would help save them, their loved ones, and their country. War also stymied criticism of the cooperatives. Because of the war, allies of the Democratic Republic ofVietnam sent mountains of grain and other food to the north. In addition to assisting the Vietnamese people, that aid obscured the production deficiencies of collective farming. The war's end had the opposite effect. Food aid quickly dwindled, exposing production deficits. No more war also meant much less reason for villagers frustrated with collective cooperatives to care about them. Persistent struggles over labor, land, harvests, draft animals, fertilizer, and other resources contributed significantly to the collapse of collective farming. Even more striking, the struggles were rarely open and organized. They manifested themselves instead in the way people lived, worked, and went about doing-or not doing-the things they were supposed to do as collective members. I call this "everyday politics." Some of that behavior was indirect resistance to authorities whom villagers could not confront directly. Much of everyday politics, however, expressed a preference for family-based farming over collective farming and conflicts among villagers over vital resources. Also part of everyday politics were individual households who used their relations with local officials to skirt collective farming regulations. Scholars have shown that slaves, peasants, and other subordinates who dare not openly object to their situation often express their concerns and anger in surreptitious, unorganized ways. Yet little research has been done on how this resistance and other forms of everyday politics might contribute to significant political change. We know that under certain circumstances widespread discontent below the surface of public life can feed into organized social movements and rebellions. But if no large organized efforts emerge, are the undercurrents of discontent and alternative aspirations of no consequence for the political system? In many cases, they are not significant. In Vietnam, however, everyday behavior-some of it resistance, some of it not-at odds with how collectives were supposed to function contributed to the demise of collectivization. This book explains how. This analysis also contributes to an understanding ofVietnam's political system. Interpretations that emphasize the top-down, authoritarian, Communist Party-dominated features of the country explain how collectivization started. They cannot, however, account for why and how collectivization ended. The analysis presented here bolsters the relevance of another interpretation, which I call dialogical, for a fuller understanding of the country's political system.

4

The Power of Everyday Politics

Approach and Methods Within northern Vietnam, I focus on Red River delta provinces and Vinh Phuc, a province slightly above the delta. Unable to research all parts of the north, I chose this area for two reasons. First, it has nearly half the north's rural population and staple food production. 2 Agriculturally speaking, this area is reasonably uniform because the main crop is rice. Second, the Communist Party government concentrated more effort to create and reinforce collective cooperatives in this area than in some others, especially the mountainous regions, which were more remote and harder to monitor. While writing this book, I had three sets of questions in mind. First, what did collective farming mean to villagers? What did they like and dislike about it and why? How did they provide for their families; handle obligations to fellow villagers, local officials, and government requirements; and deal with collectivization, war, and other major cohditions affecting them? Second, what were authorities doing and why? Why did the national government want collective farming? How did officials at various levels try to implement it and related policies and deal with difficulties and obstacles? Why did national policy shift from requiring collective farming to allowing and then encouraging family-based farming? Third, how did interactions among ordinary villagers and between them and local and higher officials affect collective farming and the cooperatives? Did these dynamics affect the collectivization process and authorities' decisions? Most of my research was done during four stays in Vietnam between 1992 and 2000. The shortest was two months; the longest, in 1995-1996, was eleven. During those stays, I sought out material that had not previously been available. Supplemental library research was done in Australia and Hawai'i. One main source of information is interviews. In 1992, I visited ten subdistricts (xa) of rural Hanoi and Ha Tay province. 3 Because I did not have permission to stay overnight in rural communities, I picked places within a thirty-kilometer radius of my quarters in Hanoi so that I could return 2. In 1961, the area had 8.4 million people (of the 16.7 million in northern Vietnam); So percent were farmers. In 1990, the area had 14.0 million people (of 33.1 million in the north); 83 percent were rural. TCTK, "Nhung Chi Tieu, NN, 1955-1967'' [GSO, "Agriculture, I955-1967''], 1968, table 20 (P TCTK, hs 760, vv); and TCTK, Nien Giam Thong Ke 1990, 7-8. For a list of Red River delta provinces, see the glossary of selected places and terms. 3. The usual translation of xa is "commune." To readers of French, this poses no problem. In English, however, "commune" often suggests a communal society or communal living rather than "the basic administrative unit in rural areas, encompassing a few villages," which is how Vietnamese dictionaries define xa (Tu Dien Tieng Viet, II76). Often each xa has two to five

Introduction

5

there by motorcycle each evening. I also chose them because written accounts indicated that their collective cooperatives had ranged from strong to weak. Most of the people I met at that time were local officials. In subsequent years I returned several times to interview ordinary villagers in two of these subdistricts, one that had had a robust collective cooperative and the other that had had an unstable one. In 2000, I stayed with my wife and a Vietnamese colleague for a month in Vinh Phuc province. Guided by accounts from newspapers and documents, I chose to talk to people in four subdistricts. All together, I had informative interviews with eighty-one villagers distributed mainly among six subdistricts in Hanoi, Ha Tay, and Vinh Phuc provinces. Nearly all these informants were at least fifty-five years old, about a third were women, and all had had lengthy experience farming in collective cooperatives that primarily produced paddy. For all interviews with villagers, a local official arranged the meetings and usually stayed for a while before drifting away. I also talked with about three dozen other people who were knowledgeable about collectivization, policy shifts, and related matters during the 1960s to 1990s. Twenty had been involved in national policy-making circles and research centers in Hanoi; the others were district and subdistrict officials and cooperative leaders. The interviews were open-ended, with one exception: one interviewee in Hanoi requested I submit a list of questions beforehand. The interviews were in Vietnamese, usually lasted two or three hours, and took place in the informant's house (or office in the case of some in Hanoi). I met a few individuals more than once. A Vietnamese researcher usually accompanied me during interviews, took extensive notes while the informant and I talked, and participated in the discussion. I generally use pseudonyms when referring to informants. Some said they would not mind being identified, others that they would, and several I never asked. Documents are another primary source. A few are published; some unpublished ones came to me from acquaintances. Most of the documents I use are in Vietnam's National Archives Number 3, where records from 1945 to the present are kept. The archive documents are primarily from government agencies; some are from the Communist Party. They include reports, usually from national and provincial offices and infrequently from district ones; qualitative and quantitative surveys; and official correspondence. When using

villages (lang, thon, or other terms). The xa is a unit within a district (huyen), which in turn is a subdivision of a province (tinh). In using "subdistrict" I do risk overemphasizing the administrative function of xa, which may have a different significance for residents. But for an English readership, "subdistrict" is preferable to "commune" or some other translation.

6

The Power of Everyday Politics

these archives in 1995-1996, I was allowed to see material through the early 1980s. By the time I returned in 2000, new rules put anything after 1970 off limits. 4 Listed in the bibliography are the nine record groups I used. Also useful are publications from the party and government regarding agrarian conditions and policies, histories of specific subdistricts, and other topics pertinent to my research. Newspapers, especially provincial ones, turned out to be valuable sources. Given that all are official publications, I had expected them to carry bland and self-congratulatory accounts. Such articles do appear. But so do detailed stories, some of them rather forthright. To benefit from the newspapers required reading articles spanning several years. I concentrated on newspapers from four Red River delta provinces, especially many years for the 1970s and 1980s, and on the party's national daily newspaper Nhan Dan (The people). Also useful for the 1980s and 1990s were Dai Doan Ket (Great unity, published by the Fatherland Front) and newspapers of the official association for peasants. Additional research could and should be done by others. More documents lie in Vietnam's national archives and in provincial and district archives, which I did not attempt to use. The Communist Party's archives, which are not yet open to scholars, also have pertinent materials. Much more could be learned from villagers, not only in places where I interviewed but also elsewhere. I regret I never obtained permission to stay for weeks or months at a time in villages so that I could soak up stories about collective farming and related activities. As a result, this book lacks the details of village life I had wanted to include. Collectivization in southern Vietnam, a topic I only touch on, merits close investigation. Also not examined in this book are marketing, credit, and nonfarming cooperatives in northern Vietnam.

Organization Chapter 2 draws on literature about peasant societies, agrarian organizations, politics, and Vietnam to elaborate the main themes in my argument. It outlines conditions for establishing and perpetuating collective farming. It also offers a theory on how noncollective action among relatively powerless people can have a powerful impact on national policies. The rest of the book analyzes four phases of collective farming in northern Vietnam 4· Some other foreign researchers in Vietnam in 1975·

2000

were able to see documents through

Introduction

7

in terms of these conditions and theory. Chapter 3 studies the preparation stage for building collective cooperatives and the period 1958-1961, during which the organizations were hastily constructed throughout northern Vietnam. In 1961-1974, examined in chapter 4, national authorities strove to strengthen the collective cooperatives while villagers and local officials contended with numerous internal problems and with the war engulfing the nation. Following a national assessment that found most collective cooperatives weak, national leaders in 1974 launched a concerted drive to revamp and enlarge the organizations. This campaign and how it backfired by the late 1970s is analyzed in chapter 5. Chapter 6 examines the final period, 1981-1990, during which family farming spread beyond what national policy had endorsed at the beginning of the decade but which the Communist Party government embraced at the end. Chapter 7 synthesizes the importance of everyday politics.

CHAPTER 2

Theorizing Everyday Politics 1n Collective Farming

For collective farming to succeed, certain conditions must be met. Otherwise, the collective organizations become enmeshed in endless struggles over key resources, as they did in Vietnam. Vietnamese villagers' struggles for the most part were indirect, involved little or no organization, and were entwined with their daily practices. Yet their everyday behavior had political meaning and consequences. Understanding how everyday politics significantly affected the course of collectivization in Vietnam will illuminate features of that country's political system and may offer insight into other cases as well.

Peasants and the Communist Party From the outset, collectivization exposed tensions between what Vietnam's national leaders wanted and what a large proportion of villagers in the Red River delta preferred. To Vietnam's Communist Party leadership, the war against France (1945-1954) was not only for national independence but for a socialist revolution in "production, technology, and ideology." After setting up its government headquarters in Hanoi following the 1954 Geneva accords, which ended the war and temporarily divided the country, the party hastened efforts to carry out this multifaceted revolution in the north. A key component in rural areas, where more than So percent of northern Vietnamese lived, was to replace the land regime left by the French with one compatible with the party's socialist 8

Theorizing Everyday Politics in Collective Farming

9

ideals. 1 Two major projects were required, one after the other. The first was to redistribute land, especially arable land, equally, without any compensation to the Catholic Church, large owners, or others. The second was to organize all landholders in a certain locality (a village or, more often, a cluster of villages) into a cooperative and combine their fields and other resources in order to farm collectively. Land redistribution, which started in the early 1950s and was completed in the north by late 1956, was both a "top-down" and a "bottom-up" project. Both the national leadership and a large proportion of the peasantry wanted land reform. Collective farming, by contrast, was "top-down." It was primarily the party leadership's idea. Even within the party there was dissent. Because of land reform and the flight of many landlords to southern provinces, no large landed interests remained to oppose it. The Communist Party government still had to contend with peasants, however, most of whom had received fields from the land redistribution and few of whom clamored for collective farming. National leaders' justifications for collective farming and cooperatives were similar to those in other countries with Communist Party governments.2 In the first place, they said, collective farming would significantly increase agricultural production. If Vietnamese households continued to farm their small plots of land separately, authorities argued, they were unlikely to produce much beyond their own needs. Indeed, many would fail to achieve even that, resulting in continued cycles of hunger and famine. By farming collectively, however, peasants would produce efficiently. Yields would climb and total production would exceed what villagers could consume. Working together, villagers could also reclaim unused areas, construct more extensive irrigation systems, diversify their farming, raise more livestock, and develop nonagricultural economic activities. Second, they argued, collectivization would improve living conditions. In 1955, a party central office made the point succinctly. Which road, it asked, should the party choose: "Let peasants continue to produce individually or encourage them 'to enter collective production"? If the party were to follow the first, the office predicted, "production will diminish, some

r. Note that from 1951 until late 1976 Vietnam's Communist Party was called the Workers' Party (Dang Lao Dong VietNam). 2. Justifications for agricultural collectivization in China and the Soviet Union, for example, are synthesized in Nolan, Political Economy, chap. 2. For elaborations on the reasons in Vietnam, see Quang Truong, Agricultural Collectivization, 49-55;Tran Nhu Trang, "Transformation;' 317-25; and Vickerman, Fate, u8-19, 124-25. For a justification by one of the party leaders directly involved in implementing the collectivization program, see Nguyen Chi Thanh, "May Kinh Nghiem."

ro

The Power of Everyday Politics

peasants will become rich, and the majority will gradually become wretchedly poor again." The road of collectivization, on the other hand, "will carry [the peasants] to happy and comfortable lives." 3 Third, they argued, without collectivization a few successful farming households would end up owning much of the land, thus undermining the ideal of social and economic equality. The majority of rural households would become tenants, low-paid laborers, and servants of the wealthy.. Collectivization would keep land in the hands of those farming it, not individually but as a community. Farm products would be distributed according to the work each person had done and according to need. No one would starve. Moreover, some of the surplus would fund health, education, and other social services for the benefit of all residents. Fourth, collective farming would change peasants' thinking. Villagers, many party leaders said, tended to focus on their own families. Sharing and working together, they argued, would enhance villagers' "collective spirit," which is necessary for creating a socialist society. Fifth, collectivization was crucial for other aspects of the socialist political economy. One was state industries, which needed food for workers, raw materials such as sugar cane and tobacco, and capital earned from selling agricultural commodities. For these necessities the government would take part of what the collective farms produced. Collective production also would make it easier to extract that share. Collective cooperative leaders would know how much was produced and would distribute a portion to members, retain another portion for local needs, and give a third portion to the government. Collective farming cooperatives, consequently, were significant components of the centrally planned economic system, which the party moved rapidly to create. Finally, and perhaps peculiar to Vietnam, collectivization was part of national defense. "Having peasants in cooperatives," a 1958 national party pronouncement stressed, "will be highly favorable for strengthening the home front, increasing national defense capabilities, and preserving peace and order." Given that "the home country is temporarily divided in two," according to another statement, peasants organized into collective cooperatives could readily "form local militia, guerrilla groups, and reserve forces as well as contribute to bolstering defense in the north and nationwide." The improved life that would result from collective farming would also 3. Instruction 3I, June 30, I955, from a central office of the party, cited in Bui Cong Trung and Luu Quang Hoa, Hop Tac Hoa, ro. The office is not specified; but it is probably the party's Secretariat.

Theorizing Everyday Politics in Collective Farming

I I

"strongly encourage our peasant compatriots in the south to exert every effort in the struggle against the United States and Diem in order to push ahead for reunification of our homeland." 4 As authorities began to publicize plans for collective farming in the midI950S, villagers were busy farming their own fields. Like poor peasants elsewhere, the primary concern of most villagers in northern Vietnam was securing enough food and other essentials for their families. 5 Their next ambition was to climb out of poverty. They believed that having their own land would help immensely on both counts. For that they were grateful to the communist government's land reform, despite the turmoil accompanying it. 6 Also boosting their prospects for a better life were the government's vigorous programs for adult literacy, rural schools and libraries, and village health clinics. The family, particularly the household, was the main unit of production in the Red River delta and most other parts of northern Vietnam. Household members typically worked together and shared what they earned from farming, handicrafts, petty trade, and wage labor. Daily routines, annual celebrations, and major rituals in life also revolved principally around the immediate and extended family. Villagers emphasized their own households and relatives, but not in an "amoral familist" manner that excluded larger associations and obligations to other entities. 7 Red River delta villagers exchanged labor with neighbors, established rotating credit associations, and had organizations built around religious beliefs, lineage, and other interests. People also shared a village identity, marked by ceremonies, festivals, deities, shrines, and temples. 8 Many villages had previously had some communal land that was supposed to be used to aid elderly residents and others in desperate straits. Retrieving such land from local elites who had usurped it was one of the aims of peasant protests and revolts earlier in the twentieth century. Other objectives included reviving redistributive norms and practices that had 4· BCHTU, DLDVN, "NQ, Hoi Nghi Trung Uong, lan thu 14," 21; and BCHTU, DLDVN, "NQ, Hoi Nghi Trung Uong, lan thu r6;' 12. 5. Scott, Moral Economy, is the best known elaboration of this point and its political ramifications. 6. About 73 percent of the north's rural population received land. Quang Truong, Agricultural Collectivization, 35. For other scholarly analyses of land reform in the north, see White, "Agrarian Reform"; Moise, Land Riform; and Pham Quang Minh, Zwischen Theorie und Praxis,

87-121, 207-67.

7· An amoral familist maximizes the material, short-run advantage of the family and assumes other people will do likewise. Banfield, Moral Basis, 83. 8. Hy Van Luong, Revolution, 55-61; Kleinen, Facing the Future, 9-rr, 65-67; and Malarney, Culture, Ritual, and Revolution.

12

The Power of Everyday Politics

helped poor villagers. 9 When villagers joined the revolution to overthrow the French, they showed they could aspire to collective goals while also fighting for the sake of their kin. Despite a capacity for collective action, many Vietnamese villagers were suspicious of collective farming, 10 not because it required cooperation but because the cooperation was total. 11 Land, labor, money, even draft animals and plows were to be collectivized. Virtually all production was to be done collectively. Everything produced together would be shared. Red River delta villagers had never farmed that way before. If collective farming failed, the costs could be colossal for individual families and whole communities.12 Given the extent of poverty, such a bold reorganization of agricultural production was especially dubious unless the new system could assure subsistence-a gamble, certainly, in the early stages. If collective farming could be the success leaders envisioned, then fine. But could it? This was a crucial question for many villagers. Communist Party leaders knew that villagers were apprehensive. They expected, however, that people would gradually realize that collective farming served their families' interests as well as the cooperative's and the nation's. The approach of party leaders was different from that of their counterparts in the Soviet Union under Stalin twenty-five years earlier. The Bolsheviks, unlike Vietnam's Communist Party, had little rural support and ended up waging war against villagers to get them to collectivize. 13 Authorities in Vietnam rarely used brute force to herd people into cooperatives, 9. Ngo Vinh Long, "Communal Property," 135-37; Hy Van Luong, "Agrarian Unrest," 165-79; Scott, Moral Economy, 127-48. 10. Some argue that it was primarily men who were dubious of collective farming because it undermined the family economy, which was patriarchal. Collective farming, in other words, threatened men's domination over women. See especially Wiegersma, "Peasant Patriarchy." I cannot say from the material I have whether this was the case or not. My evidence does show, however, that women were also greatly concerned about the welfare of their families and the hardships collectivization frequently brought to their households. II. A collective farm means "total agricultural cooperation," wrote Alexander Chayanov, Theory of Peasant Co-operatives, 207. Chayanov studied Russian peasant economies and rural cooperatives from the early 1900s until his arrest in the early 1930s. The Soviet Union police executed him in 1937. 12. As Alexander Woodside wrote about Vietnam's collectivization, "The 'management failures' of a single family affect only that family, but the 'management failures' of a [collective] cooperative cause difficulties for hundreds of families." Woodside, "Decolonization," 708. 13. In 1960, 56 percent of the Vietnam Communist Party members were from the peasantry (Elliott, "Revolutionary Re-integration," 295). For a contrast between the rural base of that party compared to the Bolsheviks in the USSR, see Tran Nhu Trang, "Transformation;' 306-8. Regarding the violence against peasants and the millions of deaths during collectivization in the Soviet Union, see Conquest, Harvest of Sorrow, chaps. 6, 7, II, 16; Fitzpatrick, Stalin's Peasants, chaps. 2 and 4; and Hughes, Stalinism, 129-59, 208-13.

Theorizing Everyday Politics in Collective Farming

r3

punish those who broke rules, or confiscate their possessions. Initially they emphasized building collective cooperatives incrementally, beginning with labor exchanges among neighbors. When they encountered major problems, party leaders stressed management reforms, reorganization, and improved leadership and did not engage in the vicious campaigns against alleged subversives that occurred in other communist countries. In Vietnam's collective cooperatives, the family also remained a social unit. Unlike in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge regime in the 1970s, families were not broken up or fused into communal living arrangements. Nor were villagers in Vietnam required to cook and eat together, as they had been in China during the late 1950s. Collective cooperatives in Vietnam even allowed families to produce a little on their own, though leaders expected this modest space for family-based production to gradually disappear. Tensions between collective farming and the household persisted and ultimately contributed significantly to the collapse of collective cooperatives. In the end, the Vietnamese peasant's family economy, rather than disappearing, triumphed over the collective system. Other research has highlighted the friction, the generally downward trend of collectivized production, and central authorities' attempts to remedy the problems. 14 In this book I provide more evidence for all three factors and delve into the reasons. I also link those tensions to the widening discontent in the countryside and to policy shifts.

Political Conditions for Establishing and Perpetuating Collectivization The fact that villagers in the Red River delta had no previous history of collective farming is not sufficient to explain why collectivization ultimately failed. Nor are the tensions between the family and the collective cooperative. Organizations in which rural people share land, water, crops, and other important resources have emerged in places without previous experience. And those that survive have dealt with problems between individual members and the organization as a whole. Some reasons for success are particular to each organization. Scholars have identified other condiI4· Vickerman, Fate, chaps. 4-6; Quang Truong, Agricultural Collectivization, 49-127; Nguyen Ngoc Luu, "Peasants, Party," chaps. 7--9; Fforde, Agrarian Question; Tran Due, Hop Tac Xa, r-37; Chu Van Lam et al., Hop Tac Hoa, r-58; and Yvon-Tran, "Une resistible." Most of these studies also highlight the achievements of collectivization, especially its contribution to the war against the United States.

14

The Power of Everyday Politics

tions, however, that are necessary (though not sufficient) for these organizations to come into being and thrive. Among them are political features, which I shall use to analyze the course of collectivization in Vietnam. The rural organizations examined in the literature I am drawing on range from those that share irrigation systems, machinery, fishing spots, or other resources to multipurpose agricultural cooperatives and communal farms. While all hold resources in common, the groups fall into two broad categories: common-pool resource organizations and common-production organizations. 15 In the former, members share a resource important for their livelihood but separately produce and consume or sell their production. An example is a cooperative of households using the same irrigation system but with each household farming its own fields and taking what it grows. In Vietnam during the mid-1950s there were groups in which people shared their labor but continued to farm separately and kept what they produced. In common-production organizations, by contrast, members not only share an important resource but work together and share what they produce. Kibbutz communities in Israel and Hutterite communities in Canada and the United States fit this model, as do Vietnam's collective cooperatives. My term for both types is "common-use agricultural organizations." Some political conditions I use to analyze collective farming in Vietnam are necessary for the common-use agricultural organizations to emerge; others are necessary for the organizations to endure. Those necessary in the emergence of such organizations are as follows. 16 First, people see a shared serious problem regarding resources that requires a collective solution for their own individual benefit. Second, to address it, they are willing to consider collaborative ways of using or producing the resources that may involve trade-otis between their own interests and general interests. They see that moving away from individual or family-based methods of addressing the problem and toward cooperative ways may result in greater benefits for all concerned. Third, people trust each other enough to find collaborative ways to use or produce the resources. Such efforts usually involve considerable trial and error, which can strain people's willingness to continue the effort. With small successes along the way, however, trial and error can enhance people's trust in one another and in the organizational process.

15. The term "common-pool resource" comes from Ostrom, Governing. r6. These conditions come primarily from Ostrom, "Reformulating"; Chayanov, Theory of Peasant Co-operatives, 226, 244-48; Axelrod, Evolution, 129-38; and Morrow and Hull, "DonorInitiated."

Theorizing Everyday Politics in Collective Farming

r5

Fourth, people must be familiar with organizations and leadership. Prior experience in an organization can be, and usually is, unrelated to the resource problem at hand but nevertheless provides some people in the emerging common-use organization with an understanding of how individuals can join together. Forming a common-use agricultural organization also requires leadership, often from people with prior experience but sometimes from people whose leadership abilities emerge from discussing and addressing the problem. Fifth, people need to have sufficient autonomy from other entities, including the national government, to organize, make decisions about the resources, and resolve difficulties. Outside agents, such as government officials, can help people think through their resource problem and create conditions for common-use organizations to emerge. But extensive outside interference can undermine people's trust, their leaders, and their willingness to continue. Vietnam in the early phases of collectivization had some of these preconditions. Others, however, were at best barely present. Especially deficient was the degree to which villagers could develop their own rules and experiments as they considered collaborative ways to use labor, land, and other resources. Consequently, the labor exchange groups and the early collective cooperatives were unstable. Despite these wobbly foundations, collectivization continued. After they are under way, many rural common-use agricultural organizations encounter insurmountable difficulties and disintegrate. Others, however, survive. These durable organizations have four similarities that are particularly useful for analyzing what happened in rural Vietnam. 17 First, participants stay in the organization in large measure because they want to, not because they are compelled to. Such commitment can arise from shared ideals, goals, religious values, or ideologies. Beliefs, however, are rarely a sufficient form of commitment in common-use organizations. To survive, most of the organizations provide members with personal, familial, and material incentives to continue, which Rosabeth Kanter calls "instrumental commitment."18 Commitment to particular individuals and groups in the organization is also often important.

17. I am drawing primarily on Bennett, Hutterian Brethren, esp. 36-45, r56-6o, 245-65; Chayanov, Theory of Peasant Co-operatives, 212, 217-20; Kanter, Commitment, 61-74; Ostrom, Governing, esp. 58-102; Peter, Dynamics, 6-81; Putterman, "Extrinsic versus Intrinsic"; Wade, Village Republics, 179-217; Weintraub et a!., Moshava, 68-rz6. 18. Kanter, Commitment, 69. For similar notions, see Anderson, "Between Quiescence," 503, 529; Lichbach, "What Makes," 385ff.

16

The Power of Everyday Politics

Second, there must be considerable trust that all members will live up to their obligations, abide by the rules, and sense the needs of others and the organization as a whole. Reciprocity is an aspect of this trust. 19 Trust is easier to develop among people who have kinship ties or other personal relationships. Regular face-to-face contact, reciprocal interaction over a range of activities, and residence in the same geographical area also engender trust. Hence, successful common-use, and particularly commonproduction organizations may be rather small. 20 Large ones can survive, however, if members are "nested" within smaller units that fulfill the conditions of durability.Z 1 The greater the trust, the easier and less timeconsuming it is to monitor what members do. No organization, however, is problem free. Third, then, there must be effective monitoring of members' activities related to resources used or produced in common. Monitoring reassures members that misbehavior will be discovered and appropriately reprimanded. Fourth, in durable common-use organizations, members have considerable confidence in how the organization is governed and how authority is exercised. This usually means that members are involved in major decisions affecting the organization. Democratic processes are not required. Indeed, authority in many durable common-production organizations is centralized. But leaders in durable organizations weigh members' views before making major decisions. The organizations also have considerable transparency regarding what leaders do and how shared resources are used. As one analyst found, "maximum flow of information" among members and between them and leaders is crucial for a healthy organization. 22 Also important for governance are conflict resolution methods that members regard as fair and minimal interference from outside agencies. Durable organizations are able to develop governing processes that work for them rather than conforming to what others say should be done. These four political conditions overlap and are mutually reinforcing. Effective monitoring enhances trust, commitment, and confidence in how 19. The term "social capital" has become fashionable in social science circles for saying much the same thing (Putman, Making Democracy Work, 167-76). For my purposes, "trust" and "reciprocity" are entirely serviceable. 20. Hutterite communities, which are among the most durable common-production organizations in the world, usually have a maximum of about !20-50 people each. When a community gets larger than that, it typically divides to form two. Peter, Dynamics, 6r; Bennett, Hutterian, 55. 2r. Ostrom, Governing, 90, I02, r89. Other favorable circumstances for large common-use organizations are synthesized in Baland and Platteau, Halting Degradation, 298-30I. 22. Nash and Hopkins, "Anthropological Approaches," 12.

Theorizing Everyday Politics in Collective Farming

17

the organization is governed. Proper governance facilitates commitment, trust, and monitoring. Similarly, serious weaknesses in one are likely to adversely affect the others. Bad governance undermines commitment, monitoring, and trust. Waning commitment can weaken monitoring methods, trust, and governance. In northern Vietnam, ordinary villagers, local officials, and national authorities often knew that many collective cooperatives were weak because they lacked these characteristics. They often stressed inadequate transparency (cong khat), leadership (su lanh dao), and other matters I have clustered under governance. They also complained about low levels of trust (long tin, tin tuong) among cooperative members and between members and collective leaders. In the I96os-I98os, authorities frequently revamped the organizations in hopes of meeting these political conditions. But those efforts were rarely successful. Other researchers have emphasized that a major reason why production of paddy and other staple food crops in Vietnam fell below what authorities expected and what the nation needed was a lack of commitment among villagers, which in turn was due to the small returns individuals received for their collective work and to poor monitoring and other management problems. 23 In this book I explain why these were intractable problems, and in particular, why trust and governance were major shortcomings in Vietnam's collective farming. 24 In theory cooperative leaders were accountable to members; in practice they often were not. Frequently, higher authorities imposed unpopular changes. For example, national authorities required small cooperatives to amalgamate and production brigades to increase in size. Embezzlement, favoritism, and other abuses of power by cooperative officials were also acute problems. It is more difficult for common-production organizations to meet the conditions for durability than for common-pool resource ones to do so. The reason, at least in Vietnam's collective cooperatives, is unresolved tensions between the organization and the family. A durable common-pool organization needs to govern and monitor the forest, fishing grounds, irrigation system, or other resource shared by all members as they go about their separate production. A durable common-production organization needs to do that and also to govern and monitor production and distrib23. Prime examples include Chu Van Lam et al., Hop Tac Hoa; Fforde, Agrarian Question;Tran Due, Hop Tac Xa; Tran Due, Hop Tac trong Nong Thon. 24. Researchers who have touched on trust and governance include Tran Nhu Trang, "Transformation;' 394-99, 419-22; Nguyen Ngoc Luu, "Peasants, Party," 477-86, 505-II; Yvon-Tran, "Une resistible," 63-65, 130, 133-35. 146, 151, 195-96; Chu Van Lam et al., Hop Tac Hoa, 72, 74·

r8

The Power of Everyday Politics

uti on of what is produced. This requires considerably more vigilance and/ or trust and commitment. Those requirements are particularly vital in common-production organizations whose members are compensated for their labor through the "remainder system" used by collective cooperatives in Vietnam and other countries. 25 After setting aside part of the cooperative's production to cover expenses and meet obligations to government agencies, leaders divided the remainder among members according to "workdays." The value of a workday-how much paddy, for instance, it was worth-was unknown until after that remainder had been divided by the total number of workdays everyone in the organization had earned. The remainder system operates somewhat like a peasant family. In a peasant household, members share what is left of their total production after setting aside enough to plant the next season, meet other vital needs, pay expenses, and satisfY rent, tax, and other obligations. Members of peasant households, as Alexander Chayanov and others have elaborated, labor as long as there is work to be done that adds to the family's total annual income. Eyeing maximum annual remuneration for the household rather than highest remuneration per unit oflabor, members endure considerable "self-exploitation" if necessary to earn enough for the family. They also work hard because the connection between their labor and the outcome for their family is clear and direct? 6 In collective farming, however, with "the mediation of so many hands between plowing and harvest, no such direct link between 'drudgery' and reward can be established for any single person or household." 27 To make a connection, everyone must be confident that everyone else is working well, that shirkers will be discovered and mend their ways, and that leaders are acting properly. Meanwhile, collective farm members also still need to get sufficient annual earnings for their own households. Consequently, satisfYing the needs of individual families and the collective is a major challenge for common-production organizations using the remainder system. In addition, the collective cooperatives in Vietnam and many other communist countries had to meet obligations to the central government. One way to eliminate the problem of balancing collective and family interests is to fold the family into the collective. Some common25. The term comes from Swain, Collective Farms, 42, which cogently explains its implications for problems in Hungary's collective farms in the 1950s-early 1960s. 26. Chayanov, Theory of Peasant Economy, 5-8; Chayanov, Theory of Peasant Co-operatives, 35-40. Also see Netting, Smallholders, 59-62, roo-ror; Louis Smith, Evolution, 42. 27. Swain, Collective Farms, 42.

Theorizing Everyday Politics in Collective Farming

19

production organizations do this well. A Hutterite community has nuclear units (with father, mother, and children), but members tend to refer to them as "home," not as family or kin. The community is each person's family. Hutterites "function as a whole, not as a group of separate nuclear families." Individuals and nuclear families rarely see their needs as separate from the community's. 28 Other efforts to dissolve the family into the community, however, have rarely succeeded. 29 When communities are forced by external agencies to keep trying, the outcome is disastrous. 30 Another option is to replace the remainder system with wages so that members know while doing a job what they will earn. While a wage system does not guarantee success, it can help to sustain a common-production organization. Collective farms in Hungary and the Soviet Union eventually did this. 31 In effect, the shift to wages moved the organization away from collective farming toward a kind of corporation in which members were employees who also held some shares. Indeed, by the mid- 1960s many Hungarian collective farms not only paid wages to members but hired outsiders to do some of the work. A third approach is to keep the family and the remainder system but persuade people to think of collective work in the same way they think of family work. Tanzanian leaders attempted this during the "ujamaa" rural development program in the 1960s. The very word "ujamaa" means "familyhood." The program tried to "universalize the unwritten rules of living within rural households and apply them to larger social and economic forms of organization," which included communal farming and other work. 32 Vietnamese leaders sought much the same. They implored villagers to work in collective cooperatives as they would work in their own families. By and large, leaders did not succeed in either country. A large part of the reason in Vietnam (and probably in Tanzania) is that, over time, most collective cooperatives could not continue to meet the four political conditions required for durability.

28. The quotation is from Bennett, Hutterian, 134. See also n8-21; and Peter, Dynamics, 6, 21, So. 29. Often communes in the United States during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries

attempted to do this. Only 3 percent lasted twenty-five years. Wesson, Soviet Communes, 20; see also 30. 30. Collectivization in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge is one of the most deadly examples of forced dissolution of the family. 31. Swain, Collective Farms, 42-48. 32. Hyden, Beyond [_]jamaa, 98, also see 99, n3-15.

20

The Power of Everyday Politics

Struggle and Everyday Politics Absent adequate political conditions for durability, Vietnam's collective cooperatives became sites of ongoing struggles. 33 Some previous studies have referred to these struggles. 34 This book examines them extensively. They occurred at several levels. Many authorities strove to make collective farming live up to their expectations. They also endeavored to stamp out corruption, instill appropriate attitudes among members, and properly manage collective resources and distribute what was collectively produced. At another level were struggles between local and higher authorities over governance of the cooperatives and distribution of paddy and other produce, among other issues. Meanwhile, ordinary villagers struggled to come to terms with collective farming. While many villagers in the Red River delta decided to give it a chance, they often remained wary. They also juggled the demands of cooperative officials and collective production with the needs of their families. Within the cooperatives there were struggles among leaders, between leaders and members, and among members themselves over work assignments, work evaluations, harvest distributions, and other matters. Finally, villagers often struggled to resist. They opposed particular leaders, specific requirements, as well as corruption and other activities they deemed unfair or wrong. People frequently opposed the cooperatives and tried to minimize their own involvement. Aspects of these struggles surfaced in public places. Authorities issued pronouncements and directives for improving and expanding collective farming; national and local officials praised successful cooperatives and criticized errant ones; cooperative leaders and other officials emphasized at meetings what had to be done to make collective farming succeed; and ubiquitous public address systems made daily announcements and gave instructions to villagers. Dominating these public spaces and methods were officials and others who supported collectivization. Only occasionally did ordinary villagers directly challenge authorities, the management of cooperatives, or government regulations. Sometimes they did so in public 33. In both English and Vietnamese, "to struggle" (dau tranh) can mean to fight violently or do battle. But here it is used in another sense it has in both languages: to contest, to contend, to make great effort, to endeavor, to strive. In addition to dau tranh (or cuoc dau tranh), other words used by Vietnamese informants and in written materials include co gang, vat Ion, phan dau, and chong. 34. The most substantial discussion of struggle in Vietnam is Horde, Agrarian Question, which suggests that persistent conflicts in 1974-1979 weakened most collective cooperatives. Also see Yvon-Tran, "Une resistible," 107-8, rrS-22, 169-79, r86-96; and Nguyen Ngoc Luu. "Peasants, Party," 425-33, 474-Sr, 509-11.

Theorizing Everyday Politics in Collective Farming

21

meetings. Or they sent petitions and letters to newspapers and to district, provincial, and national authorities. Usually villagers' public remarks complained about particular rules, abusive local officials, corruption, and government agencies' failures to deliver promised chemical fertilizer and other supplies. Rarely did people openly question, let alone condemn, collectivization itself. Instead of being public or confrontational, most villagers' struggles were surreptitious, indirect, and entwined with their everyday lives. Consequently, daily, mundane activities were often political. To use Harold Lasswell's pithy definition of politics, they were about who gets what, when, and how. 35 They manifested lingering tensions and disagreements about the Communist Party government's rationale for how land, labor, fertilizer, time, money, and other resources in a community should be used, by whom, and to what ends. Some villagers fully or largely subscribed to that rationale. Others were unsure. Still others disagreed with parts or all of it. What the doubters and opponents thought and wanted, however, was rarely expressed publicly or directly to the proponents. Rather, their concerns, preferences, and opposition were expressed in what they did and did not do in their daily lives. Central to politics is the distribution of important things-who gets them, in what proportion, when, how the distribution is done, and with what justifications. Politics involves actions, debates, decisions, conflicts, and cooperation by and among individuals, groups, and organizations regarding the control, allocation, and use of resources and the values and ideas underlying those activities. 36 It occurs in countless settings and forms. Contrary to the view of many political scientists and others, politics is not restricted to activities within governments and to concerted efforts to influence them. If that were the case, then politics would involve only a minute fraction of any country's population-primarily government officials, political parties, influential individuals, and activists in organizations trying to affect what government authorities do. 37 That number would be especially tiny in a country such as Vietnam, where the opportunities for citizens to organize or speak openly about public issues are extremely limited. Such a restricted view of politics also misses a great deal of what 35. Lasswell, Politics. 36. For elaborations of this or similar conceptions of politics, see Leftwich, "Politics"; Kerkvliet, Everyday, g-r4; Ball, Modern Politics, 2o-2r; Miller, "Everyday Politics," 99-roo; Stoker, "Introduction;' I995. s-737. For an elaboration highlighting the biases involved in viewing politics narrowly, see the stinging critique in Elshtain, Real Politics, 12-35.

22

The Power of Everyday Politics

is politically significant. The distribution of important resources is rarely confined to governments and related organizations. It occurs in corporations, factories, universities, religious groups, families, and other institutions. Nor is politics limited to activities aimed at influencing authorities or the processes for deciding how to allocate resources. And people need not be organized and active in public to be political. 38 For these reasons, it is useful to distinguish three broad types of politics: official, advocacy, and everyday. Official politics has to do with authorities-whether in governments or other organizations-who contest, make, implement, change, or evade policies regarding the allocation of resources. Their activities can range from formal to informal to illegal. 39 Advocacy politics involves direct and confrontational efforts to support, criticize, or oppose authorities, policies, programs, or the entire way resources are produced and distributed. Behavior can range from friendly, civil, and peaceful to hostile, rebellious, and violent. Advocates may be individuals, groups, or organizations. Everyday politics occurs where people live and work and involves people embracing, adjusting to, or contesting norms and rules regarding authority over, production of, or allocation of resources. It includes quiet, mundane, and subtle expressions and acts that indirectly and for the most part privately endorse, modifY, or resist prevailing procedures, rules, regulations, or order. Everyday politics involves little or no organization. It features the activities of individuals and small groups as they make a living, raise their families, wrestle with daily problems, and deal with others like themselves who are relatively powerless and with powerful superiors and others. 40 Everyday politics can, in the first place, convey people's understanding and appraisal of the system in which they live and work. Take, for instance, farming activities. In the Red River delta in the I96os-r980s, plowing, planting, tending fields, raising livestock, and harvesting were inextricably part of most villagers' lives. In the context of collectivization, how villagers 38. For clear arguments along this line, see Piven and Cloward, Poor People's Movements, 4-5; and Scott, "Resistance," 418-23. 39. For some analysts, the meaning of "informal politics" may be broad enough to include what I call "everyday politics." Most usage, however, restricts informal politics to types of behavior among government leaders, bureaucrats, and other public officials. See the chapters in Dittmer et al., eds., Informal Politics, and the articles in the special issue of Asian Survey (36 [March 1996]). 40. Some studies suggest that to be political, those everyday acts must aim to influence public affairs (Burns, Political Participation, 9-10; Tianjian Shi, Political Participation, 21-23; Huntington and Nelson, No Easy Choice, 3-7). That may be necessary for an activity to count as political participation but not for it to be political. (This view of political participation, other studies intimate, is itself too narrow. See Christiansen-Ruffman, "Women's Conceptions," 374, 382.)

Theorizing Everyday Politics in Collective Farming

23

did such work often expressed their views about production and distribution, the cooperatives they were in, and the authorities in charge. A villager who diligently plowed and harrowed collective fields may have been trying to please local officials or may have been expressing support for the system. Perhaps another person working in a perfunctory manner was conveying indifference, even opposition. Someone who, after being told that every household had to give the cooperative a ton of pig manure, mixed pebbles and dirt with the manure before turning it over to the organization was likely making a statement about the instruction, the leaders, and possibly the whole collective system. Closer inspection of the behavior may reveal no political message about collectivization. The diligent worker may be trying to impress his father or his girlfriend. The villager doing the sloppy work may be sick or lazy, rather than disgusted with collective farming. To ignore such activities, however, especially when they are numerous, would be to miss much of the subdued dialogue, negotiation, and contending ideas-the politics-within Vietnamese villages regarding the production, use, and distribution of resources and the control of those resources. Everyday politics may also affect other forms of politics. It can feed into advocacy politics, which tries to influence authorities and public discourse on production and resource allocation. In Vietnam during the era of collective farming, advocacy politics was largely limited to campaigns to mobilize rural support for the government and national defense. Organizers came from the Communist Party, other organizations close to it, and the government. No movement to modifY or eliminate collective farming developed among villagers. Nearly the only forms of advocacy politics among villagers unhappy with collectivization were occasional verbal and written comments expressing the frustrations and discontent normally conveyed through their everyday behavior. Everyday politics can affect official politics whether or not people intend it to do so. For instance, daily behavior can contribute toward perpetuating incumbent leaders, existing policies, and an entire political system. 41 Other everyday activities can contribute to the demise of particular officials, to policy changes, and even to the collapse of an organization, including a government or a regime. This may be particularly true in political systems that attempt to organize people's work, where they live, their fam4r. Studies have shown that German citizens' efforts to come to terms with the Nazi regime, even if they did not particularly like it, helped perpetuate it. Peukert, Inside Nazi Germany, 67-80, 109-10. Making a similar point in a more generalized and poignant way is Havel, "Power," esp. 35-39.

24

The Power of Everyday Politics

ilies, their religious practices. Such systems amplifY the political aspect of small deviations from what officials expect. Initially the impact may be only local, but if those modest variations are persistent and widespread, they can have national implications. 42 For Vietnam, it is rarely clear whether villagers consciously tried to influence the government to abandon collective farming. Far more often the evidence shows that people made claims to land, their own labor, and other resources in order to support their families or because they had little confidence that the cooperative organization could properly or adequately use those resources. Those actions, in addition to making statements about how resources should be used and by whom, undermined many collective cooperatives, influenced authorities, and eventually contributed to the Communist Party government's decision to discard collective farming. I have just indicated that everyday politics can include support for or at least compliance with authorities and how resources are used and distributed. Another form of everyday politics modifies or evades the rules and what others expect. A third form is resistance and opposition. All three occurred in Vietnam, although after the initial period of compliance and some enthusiasm, the second and third forms were more prevalent in collective cooperatives in the north. Evasion and resistance often occur together. Both involve discontent and complaints with the system and efforts to minimize adversities; both are surreptitious, nonconfrontational, and basically unorganized. The difference turns on intention and hierarchy. Resistance involves intentionally contesting claims by individuals or groups in superordinate classes, social strata, or institutions, or intentionally advancing claims at odds with what superordinates want. 43 In Vietnam, many activities by villagers were indeed forms of everyday resistance. Other behavior, though similar in appearance, lacked the intentional and hierarchical features of resistance (or it could not be determined whether they possessed them or not). 44 For instance, people stealthily took paddy from collective fields. In some instances, they did so to quietly oppose egregious and abusive officials. Other times, however, they did it as a preemptive measure to get grain that they presumed other villagers like 42. For engaging elaborations, see Rev, "Advantages"; Verdery, "Theorizing Socialism"; and Creed, Domesticating Revolution. 43· Scott, Weapons, 29, 32-33; Scott, "Everyday Forms of Resistance," 7-8, 21-30; Fegan, "Tenants' Non-violent Resistance," ro3-4; and Kerkvliet, Everyday Politics, rr4-I7. Another feature of resistance, which Fegan and I stress and which does figure in Scott's discussion, concerns resisters' notions of justice. 44· A similar point is made by White, "Everyday Resistance," 5I -53, 59.

Theorizing Everyday Politics in Collective Farming

25

them would take because people did not trust one another, were continuing long-standing hostilities between neighboring villages even though they were now supposed to farm together, or were desperate for food. Both cases involve everyday politics, but only the former constitutes resistance. Similarly, villagers often secretly encroached on and used individually some land that was supposed to be used collectively. Sometimes the encroachments were acts of defiance against local or higher officials. Other times, however, people took land for themselves out of a conviction that they could farm it better individually than collectively. In short, encroachments were not necessarily a form of resistance but nevertheless were part of an ongoing, but rarely public or verbal, debate over how land should be used and by whom.

The Power of Noncollective Action Although villagers seldom openly expressed their views about collective cooperatives, their behavior affected leaders locally and nationally. Authorities kept making adjustments and tried to overcome problems resulting from what villagers routinely did and did not do. Ultimately, persistent everyday struggles in villages, combined with peasants' infrequent public criticisms, significantly influenced national party and government leaders to stop insisting on collectivization and to endorse family-based production. 45 Before turning to discuss in general terms how everyday politics can sway national leaders and their policies, let me say a few words about why no protest movement against collectivization emerged. 46 Grievances, discontent, and hardships by themselves, even when widespread, are not sufficient conditions for open protest or other forms of "contentious challenges" against elites, authorities, or policies. 47 Studies of organized 45. A few earlier studies have also said that "bottom-up" pressures influenced shifts in the Communist Party government's collectivization policy: Fforde, Agrarian Question, esp. 8o-8r, 85-86, 205; Le Huy Phan, "May Suy Nghi," r4; Chu Van Lam et al., Hop Tac Hoa, 52, 78-79. A scarcity of evidence at the time these works were written prevented them from providing details and tracing the process. 46. I should mention that everyday resistance and other forms of everyday politics were not the reason no protest movement developed. Some analyses, such as Jean-Klein, "Nationalism and Resistance," argue that everyday resistance is separate from and even precludes organized resistance. Others, however, show that everyday resistance can and frequently does contribute to advocacy politics, including open protest. See Kerkvliet, Everyday Politics and "Claiming the Land"; Korovkin, "Weak Weapons"; and Gavin Smith, Livelihood. 47· The term "contentious challenges" comes from Tarrow, Power, 5.

26

The Power of Everyday Politics

protests show that at a micro level one of the most essential conditions is that many people conclude that possible gains from. public challenges outweigh possible losses. 48 During collectivization in northern Vietnam, villagers were unsure about this or assumed that adversity resulting from open protest were greater than possible advantages. Even though many people were deeply worried about collective farming, they hoped, at least in the early years, that it would lead to improved living conditions. Moreover, until 1975, war engulfed the entire country. The government claimed that collective cooperatives were vital. for national survival, a credible argument for many villagers. Others who were skeptical nevertheless thought that by tolerating collective farming they would at least be seen as doing their part for their country. Many realized that anyone who protested against collectivization would likely be deemed unpatriotic or, worse, allied with the enemy. Another factor was people's assessments of the Communist Party government. Unlike in many other countries, including several with communist governments that insisted on collective farming, relations between the state and the peasantry were reasonably good. 49 This encouraged people to think that an accommodation could be reached. Meanwhile, by engaging in low-key activities that nibbled away at collective farming, people made their lives somewhat easier than it would have been had they adhered to the rules. In other words, it is possible they saw that, given the circumstances, their everyday actions were more efficacious than open opposition to and organization against collectivization. Macro conditions also affect the likelihood that protest organizations will develop. Several authors have stressed the pattern of political opportunities and constraints. 50 Although no single pattern fits all situations, many accounts suggest that contentious challenges are unlikely to grow in political systems that allow little legal space for people to form political organizations or to rigorously repress open dissent, and in those that are not rocked by major splits within ruling or elite circles. Individuals and groups might, of course, create and expand opportunities by taking advantage of cracks in the brickwork of highly restrictive political regimes. But this rarely happened in northern Vietnam so far as we know. 48. Lichbach, "Contentious Maps," 90-93; Melucci, "Getting Involved," 331-33, 339-41. Also see Lichbach, Cooperator's Dilemma; and Gamson et a!., Encounters, ro8-2r. Although this last work emphasizes assessments of potential personal gains and losses, it also points to the implications of open opposition for one's family, community, or other corporate affiliations. 49. Vasavakul, "Vietnam," 266-69; White, "Everyday Resistance;' so-52. so. Kitschelt, "Political Opportunity Structures"; McAdam, "Conceptual Origins"; McAdam et a!., "Introduction"; Piven and Cloward, Poor People's Movements, 6-23; Tarrow, Power, 2-7, r8-23, 71-90.

Theorizing Everyday Politics in Collective Farming

27

The Communist Party dominated the political system in northern Vietnam until 1975 and in the entire nation after reunification. Party organization and government agencies reached deep and wide across the country. No competitive elections occurred. The party and government controlled all newspapers, publishing houses, and other media. Unauthorized organizations scarcely existed. In addition to a large army, the government had an internal security police force extending from Hanoi to practically every rural village and urban neighborhood. The police's principal duties were to maintain order and investigate any suspicious individuals and activities. A residential registration system (ho khau) and other regulations prevented people from traveling beyond their own subdistricts without permission. Consequently, communication, networking, or coordination among people in different parts of the country-even different parts of the same district or province-was exceedingly difficult without official involvement. Meanwhile, the government remained stable. The same person, Le Duan, was the party's top leader for twenty-five years (1960-I986), most of the collectivization era. Several peak party and government positions rotated among a small number of individuals. Leadership succession and changes in the composition of the party's Political Bureau and other key committees occurred with little disruption. Heated debates developed within high echelons of the party and in government ministries, but none resulted in major splits. All these features ofVietnam's political system put tremendous constraints on organized protests and raised considerable risks for people who might have become involved in them. Despite no significant organized action against collective farming, villagers influenced national authorities and the course of collectivization in the I96os-I98os. How could this happen? Here I offer a general explanation. Having considered some similar cases elsewhere, I think the explanation is not unique to Vietnam. Everyday activities that are out of line with what authorities require and expect can have considerable political clout. Testing this theory beyond Vietnam would require further study, particularly of places without communist governments in which unorganized citizens undermined major policies and of situations in which everyday politics incompatible with official policies had little or no impact. My general explanation has five elements. The first is the degree of power that people, though in relatively weak positions, do have, at least potentially, vis-a-vis authorities and the government. In Vietnam and several other countries with communist governments pressing for collective farming, villagers' most obvious power is their labor. If villagers did not do the farming, who else would? Collective cooperative officials could not

28

The Power of Everyday Politics

handle all the work. Nor were there enough party members and others committed to collectivization to do the job. Just as an army cannot fight without soldiers and a factory cannot produce without workers, collective farms cannot function without peasants doing the tasks they are supposed to do. Consequently, by withholding labor, using it in a manner out of sync with what is required, or in other ways "working the system" to their advantage or minimum disadvantage, peasants could exercise some power. 51 Peasants also have another kind of power. They have alternatives or supplementary options, however limited, to what national authorities claim or want from them. Even on collective farms, villagers have retained some separate means of production. In Tanzania, the ujamaa program in the 1970s required villagers to work on the government's communal lands. Peasants still had their own fields, however, leaving them with sufficient means to subsist, which eventually contributed to the collapse of the program. 52 Households in the collective cooperatives ofVietnam and other countries had their own gardens, ponds, and small fields in which they grew a significant proportion of their basic food requirements. This was not an oversight. Authorities knew that collective farming, at least initially, could not produce every kind of crop. Hence, they left some land for members to use individually. Officials also realized that getting people into collectives would be infinitely harder if every bit of land was amalgamated, leaving none for each family's own use. But allowing households to retain some land also allowed peasants some independence from the collective system. Authorities in some countries, such as China, later tried to take away these household plots but backed down in the face of smoldering peasant opposition. Another way for peasants to remain apart from the collectives has been to leave. This was not an option for most Vietnamese. It was a possibility, however, in several Eastern European countries during collectivization there in the 1950s. And in Laos, the "haemorrhage of population" after 1975, as villagers fled across the Mekong River into Thailand to escape collective farming and other objectionable policies, was one of the main reasons why the alarmed communist government suspended collectivization in 1979. 53 Another source of power is the importance of peasants to the government. They may be a major base of support. Or agricultural production may be vital for government programs. The latter was arguably the case in SI. In this last statement I am borrowing from Eric Hobsbawm's more general discussion of peasants' sources of power, "Peasants and Politics," 13. 52. Hyden, Beyond Ujamaa, 29, 31-32, II3-I4, 123-24. 53· Stuart-Fox, Buddhist Kingdom, r68, also see r25-26.

Theorizing Everyday Politics in Collective Farming

29

China at the end of the 1970s, when the Deng Xiaoping government's economic program needed "record expansion in the farm sector." This increased peasants' leverage and gave the central government reason to accommodate local farming practices at odds with collectivization. 54 A somewhat similar situation developed in Poland during the 1950s. Peasants there had quietly opposed collectivization by not joining the cooperatives, by farming less, and by hiding produce. Such behavior created havoc with domestic food supplies, which aggravated strikes among urban workers, the base of the nation's United Workers Party government. To deal with workers' discontent, the government had to get peasants back to farming. To accomplish that, the party's new national leadership in 1956 retreated from collectivization. 55 In Laos and Yugoslavia, where central authorities also retreated from collectivization in considerable measure as a result of everyday political behavior, the peasantry was both a major power base for the communist governments and the muscle power for those governments' economic development programs. 56 The same was true in Vietnam. In addition, Vietnamese peasants were the backbone and arms and legs of the army, on which the very existence of the government in Hanoi depended during the war against the United States. A second element is the extent to which authorities dare not force compliance. Although coercive when organizing and maintaining collective farming, many governments did not resort to extensive violence. As one analyst ofYugoslavia put it, the country's communist government "used all conceivable psychological, political, social, and economic pressures" to collectivize the countryside, but "it did not use brute force of the Soviet brand" to get its way. 57 Leaders in Vietnam and many other communist countries were unwilling or unable to use the full might of the state to collectivize. Consequently, unlike in the Soviet Union during the 1930s or Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge in the 1970s, these leaders' ideological commitment to collective agriculture was not lethal. 58 54· Kelliher, Peasant Power, esp. 246-47 .. 55· Szymanski, Class Strnggle, 27-35; Korbonski, Politics of Socialist Agriculture, 5, 139-40, 164, 189, 194-95, 212-14, 305; Sokolovsky, Peasants and Power, 65-68, 71-74, 79-80. 56. Regarding Laos, see Evans, Lao Peasants, 53-54, 122, 133-37, 146-47; Stuart-Fox, Buddhist Kingdom, II7-26. For Yugoslavia, see Bokovoy, "Peasant and Partisans;' u6-i7, 125-29, 132; R. F. Miller, "Group Farming," 165; Rusinow, Yugoslav Experiment, 36-40; Tomasevich, "Collectivization," 174, 177-79. 57· Tomasevich, "Collectivization," 172. 58. I am thinking here of the discussion in Scott, Seeing, 5, about authoritarian states that are willing to use all means to get "utopian social engineering schemes" implemented. For references on the Soviet Union, see above, n. IJ. Regarding collectivization by the Khmer Rouge, see Kiernan, Pol Pot Regime, 456--60, and chaps. 5 and 6; and Martin, Cambodia, chap. 7·

30

The Power of Everyday Politics

The third element is the magnitude of everyday politics at odds with what national authorities prescribe. If only a few people in a village were skirting the collective farm's claims on their time and labor, the impact on the organization would be slight and the effect on national policy zero. Even errant behavior in several villages would have a trivial effect on national authorities. If, however, such behavior were widespread and similar across numerous collectives, the impact would be considerably greater. 59 Under collectivization in several countries, many people in many places did the minimal required work for the collective, farmed collective land with little enthusiasm, resented local officials, and diverted labor and other resources away from collective production to household production. One analyst likened the phenomenon in China to an unorganized yet extensive "invisible 'sit-in.' " 60 The behavior also reflected similar preferences among villagers across the countryside-away from collective farming and toward family farming. Countless similar actions by the peasantry persisted despite authorities' efforts to counter them. By what they did and did not do and how they used their labor and other resources over which they retained some control, peasants in collective cooperatives were essentially manipulating collectivization policy. Their intent may have been to provide for their families and exact concessions or immediate benefits. The consequence, however, was to alter the application of policy in their own villages. Similar behavior in countless places across the countryside meant that many collective cooperatives turned into organizations different from what central authorities had wanted. 61 In Hungary, according to one study of the country's rural situation, peasants 59· For other sectors of society or for other policies, the behavior need not encompass a large portion of. an entire country. The pertinent requirement is that a significant percentage of people vital for the policy to be implemented or for the institution to function is not complying. 6o. Xueguang Zhou, "Unorganized Interests," 67. He also calls it "collective inaction" that is "a form of collective action" (66). That, however, is befuddling language. Such conduct is politically potent but cannot sensibly be called collective action. People are acting more or less privately, surreptitiously, and with little or no organization. I agree with Daniel Kelliher, Peasant Power, 246, that the behavior is only collective "in the sense of being duplicated and multiplied on a massive scale." 61. Kelliher, Peasant Power, 239-42, makes this point regarding China. It applies as well to Vietnam and several other countries with Communist Party governments. Some China scholars disagree with Kelliher and others, who contend that local arrangements at odds with central authorities' preferences were widespread and influenced the direction of national policy. Such occurrences, they say, were rare and usually took place in remote parts of China. Decollectivization, they argue, was a mixture of top-down and bottom-up pressures, and that most of the bottom-up ones were from provincial and other lower-level offices, not ordinary villagers. For a thoughtful presentation of this argument, see Unger, Transformation, 95-II5.

Theorizing Everyday Politics in Collective Farming

3r

"just lived their lives and their way of living gradually changed the political system around them." 62 There, and in Bulgaria and Romania, such everyday practices cumulatively led authorities to temporarily back away from collectivization drives and later to give more scope to family production and in other ways modifY collective farming. 63 Analogous changes occurred in Vietnam, except there, as in Yugoslavia, Poland, Laos, and possibly China, the process continued until decollectivization was complete. Collectivization itself is largely responsible for generating extensive antagonistic everyday activities that moved in the same direction. 64 The collective farming system put all villagers in northern Vietnam in the same boat. Of course, that did not mean they were homogeneous. They lived in different parts of the country, produced different things, and had various customs. Within the same village, some were better off than others, some had strong connections to local authorities while others did not, and some had revolutionary credentials that gave them an advantage over others. Nevertheless, because they were in collective cooperatives, villagers far and wide faced similar circumstances and did similar things to deal with the system, provide for their families, and resist where they could. To behave alike, they did not need another organization. The collective cooperative itself was enough to get people thinking and acting in similar ways. A fourth element in the explanation of how small activities can have large consequences is the very nature of those acts. 65 Because it was nonconfrontational and leaderless, behavior out of line with collective farming provided no organizations for authorities to crush and no obvious individuals to arrest. Being largely hidden, often atomized or only loosely coordinated among neighbors, yet spread across numerous provinces, such activities were extremely costly to stop. Vietnamese authorities tried repeatedly to monitor collective farming members. They rewarded villagers who complied with rules and penalized those who did not. These efforts, however, were not enough. Authorities could have resorted to force and physically punished, incarcerated, or even killed some errant peasants. But that could have been even more costly, would probably have proven no more effective in the long run, and would have been highly counterpro62. Rev, "Advantages;' 348. 63. Creed, Domesticating Revolution, 3, r84-87; Kideckel, "Dialectic;' 52-58; Kideckel, "Socialist Transformation," pr, 326, 328; Rev, "Advantages," 343-44; Swain, Collective Farms, 25-26, 41-42, 6o-66. 64. Others have also made this argument: Kelliher, Peasant Power, 247; Xueguang Zhou, "Unorganized Interests," 56-58, 67. 65. Emphasizing the same point for China is Kate Xiao Zhou, How the Farmers, 243-44. Also see Kelliher, Peasant Power, 248; and Rev, "Advantages;' 343, 345, 347.

32

The Power of Everyday Politics

ductive. Perhaps violent repression is more likely if authorities concludeon the basis of delusion or some hard evidence-that villagers are challenging or trying to overthrow the government. 66 But authorities in Vietnam were not delusional, and peasants there had considerable goodwill toward the party, or at least were not particularly hostile toward it. A fifth element is the extent to which officials, particularly local ones, knowingly or unwittingly spread everyday political activities at odds with national prescriptions. In agricultural collectives, leaders, because of incompetence or lack of resources, were sometimes unable to stop the violations. Others gave tacit approval. Still others explicitly endorsed the deviations. Motivations among authorities varied. Collective officials in Vietnam, China, Hungary, and other countries negotiated different arrangements with villagers and turned a blind eye to practices out of line with the rules, simply to get the work done. 67 Officials also granted favors to relatives and friends. Some used their positions to steal and in other ways illegally serve their own interests. 68 In addition to directly undermining collective farming, such favoritism and corruption allowed other villagers to justifY their own deviations from what leaders were exhorting them to do. Some officials made concessions, initially small but later larger, because they concluded that changes were necessary for the cooperative to function, albeit differently from the way the central government prescribed. Sometimes such local accommodations were later endorsed by higher authorities, particularly when better production resulted. 69 These five elements help to explain how and why everyday politics had local and national repercussions in Vietnam. The everyday behavior of villagers as they struggled to deal with collectivization affected local officials' efforts to organize and run the cooperatives according to higher authori66. Part of what drove the violent and murderous methods of collectivization in the Soviet Union under Stalin and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. were authorities who read any sign of deviation from what people were told to do as treason and opposition to the regime. 67. Even in the Soviet Union, bargaining between ordinary members and collective leaders and managers over jobs to be done was "so widespread as to be simply the way things work." Humphrey, Karl Marx Collective, 305. 68. For a detailed analysis of favoritism and other aspects of clientelistic relationships that frequently developed between local collective leaders and ordinary members in China, see Oi, State and Peasant, chap. 7. A study that stresses the adverse consequences of local corruption for collectivization in China is Kate Xiao Zhou, How the Farmers, esp. 53-56, 239, 242. 69. A study of China that tends to dismiss the influence of bottom-up pressure against collectivization nevertheless points to peasants and local authorities who developed ways of farming out of line with official policy. Then splits within high echelons of the Communist Party over collectivization and other policies provided an environment in which local experimentation spread. Fewsmith, Dilemmas, 19, 27-29. Also see Kate Zhou, How the Farmers, 60-62, 70.

Theorizing Everyday Politics in Collective Farming

33

ties' expectations. Villagers' everyday activities, combined with their rare public criticisms and expressions of discontent, also influenced party and government debates and decisions about how to improve collective farming. And in the late 1980s they significantly influenced national decisions to back away from collectivization and encourage instead family-based farming, the very thing most villagers had wanted. I am not saying that everyday politics is the only explanation for the direction collective farming took in northern Vietnam. Other factors were at work, which also constrained or enhanced the impact of everyday politics. There was the war against the United States, food aid from other countries, other communist countries' influence on the Vietnamese leaders' stance on collectivization, and severe problems with the nation's centrally planned economy in the late 1970s to early 1980s.

Understanding Vietnam s Political System Two main interpretations ofVietnamese Communist Party rule synthesize important aspects of the country's political system, but neither can accommodate well how and why collectivization policies changed. The first is the "dominating state" interpretation. 70 It says that rules and programs governing Vietnam are monopolized within the state. According to one analyst, Vietnam is a "vast and coordinated party-state which preempts alternative and autonomous societal organizations from the national center down to the grassroots of the village and the workplace." 71 Another contends that "Vietnam's system is mono-organizational socialism" in which "there is little scope for the organization of activity independent of the party-led command structures.'m With regard to policy making and implementation, this interpretation grants importance only to the state institutions. Gareth Porter is clearest on this: "The model of the bureaucratic polity, in which major decisions are made entirely within the bureaucracy and are influenced by it rather than by extra-bureaucratic forces in society-whether parliamentary parties, interest groups, or mass move70. The publications to which I refer in this section by no means exhaust the literature. Also, a reference to a particular scholar's work does not mean that everything that person has written about Vietnam fits within one interpretation. The study of politics in contemporary Vietnam is young and evolving, hence an individual scholar can come to a tentative conclusion at one stage and later change it. 71. Womack, "Reform in Vietnam," r8o. 72. Thayer, "Political Reform," III-!2.

34

The Power of Everyday Politics

ments-aptly describes how the Vietnamese policy system works.'m To understand those internal processes, scholars analyze debates and factions within the Communist Party, government ministries, the military, and other components of the state. 74 The only noteworthy influences outside those official policy-making circles that the dominating state interpretation acknowledges are international ones. 75 A second interpretation modifies the first by arguing that forces in society can influence policy through authorized organizations. Some analysts call this phenomenon "mobilizational authoritarianism," others, "state corporatism." I use the term "mobilizational corporatism." This interpretation highlights organizations that the Communist Party government has established. Among them are organizations for peasants, workers, youth, women, Buddhists, and other sectors of society. Through them, the party and government ministries can mobilize people to support programs and policies, maintain channels of communication between authorities and each sector of society, and manage social and economic groups that otherwise might become unruly. William Turley argues that because other organizations independent of the state are prohibited, and because the Communist Party retains considerable legitimacy, "the power elite has been able to invite popular involvement under its supervision without much fear that things will get out of control." At the same time, people's concerns expressed through these authorized channels can influence policy debates. 76 Both interpretations focus on the formal institutions of policy making and implementation. The first emphasizes the Communist Party, the government, and other agencies of the state that fit squarely into what I call "official politics." The second adds authorized state organizations, arguably leaning toward what I call "advocacy politics." These institutions and organizations are indeed m~or players in the story of agricultural collectivization and decollectivization. It was national leaders who decided the country had to collectivize. Through structures extending from Hanoi into most villages, party and government agencies built the collective cooperatives, carried out numerous campaigns to train leaders, improve management, and teach villagers how to farm together, and conducted other programs to bolster collectivization. Meanwhile, local branches of national organizations 73. Porter, Vietnam, wr, emphasis in the original. 74· Thai Quang Trung, Collective Leadership; and Stern, Renovating. Also see Kolka, Vietnam, II9-25, 130-32. 75. Porter, Vietnam, 96; Kolka, Vietnam, 29-30, I33-37. 76. Turley, "Party, State, and People," 269-70; Turley, "Political Renovation," 330-31. For state corporatist arguments, see Jeong, "Rise," 152-7r; and Stromseth, "Reform and Response."

Theorizing Everyday Politics in Collective Farming

35

for peasants, youth, and women persuaded, encouraged, and coerced fellow villagers to work hard to make collective farming a success. 77 The cooperatives, local branches of the party, and other authorized organizations also conveyed villagers' concerns and criticisms to higher levels, where discussions and debates addressed how to improve production and strengthen collectivization. From those deliberations in national circles came decisions in the 1960s and early 1970s to enlarge collective cooperatives, revamp their management, and make other changes aimed at reinforcing and improving collectivization. In the late 1970s those agencies authorized modest shifts away from collective farming. More debate in national party and government offices during the 1980s led to decisions that endorsed family farming. J\llobilizational corporatism can account for how villagers in Vietnam voiced concerns and criticism through official channels. But neither it nor the dominating state analysis includes what villagers did outside those channels that affected how cooperatives actually functioned and stymied authorities' persistent efforts to make cooperatives operate according to official rules and regulations. In other words, those two interpretations do not acknowledge the significance of differences between what the Communist Party government stipulated and what villagers did. Nor do they recognize that what peasants did influenced national policies. Through their everyday practices and ongoing contestation and negotiation among themselves and between them and local officials, villagers created methods of production and distribution that did not jibe with national policies. Higher authorities were often aware of these unauthorized practices. Indeed, numerous measures to improve collective farming in the 1960s and 1970s were aimed at eliminating such deviations as well as corrupt and incompetent leadership within the cooperatives. Officials in party and government circles pondered how to deal with the shortcomings they saw in most collective cooperatives, the falling food production, and other crises in the nation's economy. Gradually, national authorities began to look differently at deviant local arrangements, which featured family-based farming and yields that were significantly better than collective farming achieved. Between the late 1970s and late 1980s, the Communist Party government incrementally adjusted its collectivization policy to accommodate aspects of those unauthorized practices instead of trying to expunge them. Initially, authorities did so in hopes of confining family-based farming to a small 77. The Peasants' Association, said one of its reports, is a "prop" (cho dua) of the Communist Party government and a force for implementing "the policies and undertakings of the party and the state." BCHTU, Hoi Nong Dan Viet Nam;"Bao Cao," 12.

36

The Power of Everyday Politics

proportion of the land or to a few tasks, while many others continued to be done collectively. By the late 1980s, however, officials gave up and redistributed collective land and other means of production to individual households. The impact of everyday politics on collectivization policy bolsters a third interpretation in the study ofVietnam's political system. It picks up on a point Brantly Womack makes about the Communist Party during Vietnam's revolutionary period, before its government ruled the country. At that time, he says, the party had to be "mass-regarding" to garner popular support, especially among the peasantry. "Upon victory," however, the "imperative for mass-regarding politics is lost and the authoritarian internal structure" tends to take over. The masses no longer have any significant influence on the party. 78 The third interpretation, which I call "dialogical," posits that the interaction between the party and the masses does not stop with the end of the revolution. Dialogue, in the broad sense of communicating ideas and preferences, continues between authorities and various sectors of society and is an important aspect of the political system. 79 The views and demands of authorities are often public. Those of the masses rarely are. Peasants and workers do use the narrow authorized avenues to voice their views and concerns. Sporadically, such as in demonstrations and uprisings, they also venture beyond those avenues to challenge authorities publicly. Generally, however, they express their views through nonconfrontational actions involving little or no organization. This dialogical interpretation of the political system recognizes that the communist government's capacity to coordinate programs and implement policies is considerably weaker than what a dominating state or mobilizational corporatist view would argue. Activities not under the state's control remain afoot and introduce discrepancies between what authorities claim and what actually occurs. Indeed, social forces and groups beyond the state can contribute to shifts in policies. This interpretation also points out that authorities can adjust and change policies in the face of realities beyond their control.

78. Womack, "Party and the People," 486. Womack applies his argument to China as well. A similar view about Vietnam emerges in Woodside, "Peasants and the State," 284-85, 289-90. 79. Earlier studies highlighting dialogue of this kind in Vietnam include Post, Revolution, 14, 212; Pelzer, "Socio-Cultural Dimensions"; HyVan Luong, "Marxist State"; and Kerkvliet, "Dialogical Law Making." Without using the term, others make the same point: Beresford and Fforde, "Methodology"; Horde, Agrarian Question; Koh, "Wards of Hanoi"; O'Rourke, "Community-Driven Regulation"; Thrift and Forbes, Price ofU'0\

2,932 3,008 3,236 3,237 3,196 3,358 3,301 3,202 3,162 3,188 3,146 3,170 3,303 3,312 3,224 3,301 3,398 3,391 3,338

1,163 1,179 1,218 1,264 1,174 1,286 1,245 1,207 1,187 1,185 1,196 1,215 1,288 1,289 1,247 1,263 1,236 1,233 1,209

6,392 5,748 6,209 6,258 5,964 7,038 7,714 7,450 7,474 7,593 7,688 7,620 8,369 8,955 8,448 7,834 9,701 10,798

3,131 2,602 2,766 2,897 2,692 3,243 3,602 3,440 3,271 3,387 3,290 3,433 3,994 4,289 4,101 3,457 4,693 5,388

2.18 1.91 1.92. 1.93 1.87 2.10 2.34 2.33 2.36 2.38 2.44 2.40 2.53 2.70 2.62 2.37 2.85 3.18 2.69 2.21 2.27 2.29 2.29 2.52 2.89 2.85 2.76 2.86 2.75 2.82 3.10 3.32 3.29 2.74 3.80 4.37

247 218 235 231 215 246 264 252 247 247 246 239 257 268 255 231 271 286

273 231 241 246 223 263 286 269 252 255 244 250 288 314 294 256 346 371

2,384 2,327 2,426 2,440 2,306 2,481 2,495 2,476 2,471 2,502 2,442 2,450 2,465 2,481 2,484 2,510 2,522 2,519 2,507

1,060 1,055 1,054 1,053 937 1,053 1,055 1,054 1,048 1,052 1,037 1,041 1,050 1,058 1,058 1,014 1,025 1,033 1,027

5,458 4,646 4,750 4,879 4,371 5,401 6,170 6,174 6,200 6,292 6,263 6,075 6,709 7,275 6,962 6,258 7,885 8,973 8,242

2,903 2,356 2,390 2,461 2,145 2,727 3,158 3,128 3,003 3,092 2,929 2,955 3,455 3,744 3,618 3,038 4,102 4,843 4,121

2.29 2.00 1.96 2.02 1.90 2.18 2.47 2.49 2.51 2.51 2.56 2.48 2.72 2.93 2.80 2.49 3.13 3.56 3.29

2.78 2.23 2.27 2.34 2.29 2.59 2.99 2.96 2.86 2.94 2.82 2.84 3.29 3.54 3.42 3.00 4.00 4.69 4.01 210 185 227 253 228

290 229 302 351 293

Note: Blank cells mean no available data. Sources: Figures are taken or calculated from TCTK, Baa Cao Phan Tich, 7; TCTK, "Nhung Chi Tieu, NN, 1955-1967'' [GSO, "Agriculture, 1955-1967''], 1968, tables 59 and 169 (P TCTK, hs 760, vv); TCTK, 12 Nam Phat Trien, 94, 95, !07-II, 122, 123, 125, 133, 136; TCTK, Nien Giam Thong Ke 1975, 216-18, 220, 222, 224; Vu Nong Nghiep, So Lieu, 87, 117-23, 126-51; TCTK, Nien Giam Thong Ke 1993, 29; TCTK, Nien Giam Thong Ke 1995, 85, 87, 89.

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

>-

+> -....j

N

....

~

8-:

::l

(])

'"0 '"0

Table

2.

Labor exchange groups in northern Vietnam, 1955-1960

Year

Number of groups

End 1955 End 1956 Mid-1957 End 1957 End 1958 April 1959 End 1959 End 1960

153,000 190,200 72,000 100,900 244,400 249,025 97,600 12,971 b

Average number households per group 7.1 7.1 5.9 7.3 10.6 9.8

Percentage of all agricultural households in the groups

All groups

"Regular" groups

"Work point" groups

2 21 26

8 11

40 50 19' 22 66 69 38 5

' Calculated by extrapolation. b Incomplete count. Notes: Blank cells mean no information available. Sources: TCTK, 12 Nam Phat Trien, 59; TCTK, "Nhung Chi Tieu, NN, I955-1967'' [GSO, "Agriculture, I955-I967''], I968, table 25 (P TCTK, hs 760, vv); Tran Van Dai, BCTNT TU, "BC TH, HTH, San Xuat 6 thang, I959" [Tran Van Dai, RAC, "Cooperativization, half of I959"], 30 July I959, I (P UBKHNN, hs I258, vv); and Vickerman, Fate, 126-27.

Table 3. Agricultural collective cooperatives in northern Vietnam, 1955-1960

Number By Year End 1955 End 1956 Mid 1957 Mid 1958 End 1958 Mid 1959 End 1959 End 1960 By region Mountainous Midlands Delta Zone 4

Percentage of agricultural households

10' 42 33 134 4,720b 16,150 28,840 40,420

5 22 45 86

8,190 4,680 16,390 110,160

66 91 89 88

Percentage of cultivated land

5 41 68

Average size Households

Hectares

13

10

26 35 43 59

17 25 34

80

' Includes four that survived the war against the French and six experimental ones that the government established in 1955. b Figures from end of 1958 through I960 are rounded. Sources: "BCTK CT Xay Dung Thi Diem HTX SXNN, du thao" ["Experimental cooperatives"], n.d. [circa September I957J, I-2 (P UBKHNN, hs 6I6, tt); BCHTU, DLDVN, "NQ, Hoi Nghi Trung Uong, Jan thu I6," r; Cue Thong Ke TU, "So Lieu Dieu Tra HTHNN I959 [Central Statistics Office, "Agricultural cooperativization, I959"], I959, table I (P UBKHNN, hs 1258, vv); Tran Van Dai, BCTNT TU, "BC TH, HTH, San Xuat 6 thang, I959" [Tran Van Dai, RAC, "Cooperativization, half of I959"], 30 July I959, r (P UBKHNN, hs I258, vv); TCTK, "Nhung Chi Tieu, NN, I955-1967'' [GSO, "Agriculture, I955-I967''], I968, tables 27, 29, and 30 (P TCTK, hs 760, vv); TCTK, Bao Cao Phan Tich, 9; and Vu Nong Nghiep, So Lieu, 6o.

96 91 75

72

95 90

89 90

95 90 70

88 82 77 88 96

83 94

79

92

85 86 89

1963

96 90 73

86 84 78 88 93

81 91

88 89

85 85 89

1964

79

92

97

90 90 86 94 96

86 93

83 94

90 89 94

1965

96 91

99 97 89

99

93 94 97

98

97 93 93 96

97

96 99

96 96 98

1970

95

94 97

95 95 97

1968

98 89

99

94 94 97

98

97

97 99

96 97 98

1971

86 82

100

97 99 99

99

100

93 99 100 98

1976

85 83

100

98 99 99

100

100

93 99 99 99

1977

89 85

100

98 100 99

100

99

95 99 98 99

1978

96 86

99

98 100 99

100

99

97 99 98 99

1979

12

96 87

99

99 100 99

100

99

97 99 99 99

97 85

98

99 100 98

100

100

96 99 99 99

1981

Nam Phat

1980

Note: No data available for missing years. ' Incomplete list of provinces in midlands. Sources: TCTK, "So Lieu 5 Nam HTX 196o-r965" [GSO, "Cooperatives, 196o--r965], February 1966, table 3 (P TCTK, hs 661, vv); TCTK, Trien, 56r;Vu Nong Nghiep, So Lieu, 36-38.

92

96 88 66

92 87 87

92

94

87 88 77 89 95

91 94

91 91

84 85 91 89

88 94

91 93

88 89

86 87 81

89 91 94

86 89 87

1962

Entire north Red River delta Hanoi Ha Nam Ninh Narn Ha Ninh Binh Ha Son Binh Ha Tay Hai Duong· Hai Hung Hung Yen HaiPhong Thai Binh Midlands' Phu Tho Vinh Phu Vinh Phuc Zone 4 Mountain areas

1961

1960

Region or province

Table 4· Proportion of northern Vietnam agrarian households in collective cooperatives, 1960-r98I (rounded to nearest whole percentage)

>

+\0

tv

~

8-:

:::s

('J)

"0 "0

250

The Power of Everyday Politics

Table S. Consumption of staple and other food by collective cooperative peasants in northern Vietnam, 1959-1974, 1976-1980 (average per person, per month)

Year

Staple food Uuong thuc] (paddy equivalent, kg)

1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

23.0 21.3 20.9 19.5 19.1 19.4 18.1 17.2 18.2 17.6 17.9 18.1 17.8 15.9 15.9 17.2 15.4 12.0 11.6 11.9 10.4

% of all Paddy (kg)

staple food

Meat (kg)

Fish, shrimp (kg)

Eggs (no.)

Vegetables (kg)

Fish sauce, soy sauce (liter)

20.7 20.5 18.3 17.5 16.5 16.0 15.9 15.0 14.8 14.9 14.5 15.6 15.8 14.3 14.3 16.1

90 96 87 90 86 82 88 87 81 85 81 86 89 90 90 94

0.48 0.44 0.46 0.51 0.52 0.44 0.46 0.40 0.40 0.42 0.46 0.56 0.46

0.48 0.38 0.42 0.47 0.42 0.34 0.40 0.34 0.29 0.38 0.33 0.32 0.36

0.41 0.46 0.42 0.43 0.42 0.40 0.34 0.39 0.54 0.51 0.52 0.47

2.4 2.6 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.3 2.9 3.4 3.9 3.5 3.9 3.9

0.13 0.15 0.22 0.16 0.22 0.18 0.16 0.19 0.30 0.33 0.30 0.34 0.31

Note: Blank cells mean no available data; and no data for 1975. Sources:· TCTK, "Nhung Chi Tieu, NN, 1955-1967'' [GSO, "Agriculture, 1955-1967''], 1968, table 290 (P TCTK, hs 760, vv); TCTK, 12 Nam Phat Trien, 590; BQLHTXNN, UBNNTU, "BC, Mot So Net, HTX SXNN, 1975" [ACMC, CAC, "Major features of cooperatives"], ro February 1976, 14 (P UBNNTU, hs 160, vv); "Sau 30 Nam," 36.

199 229 278 310 378 368

156 160

138

80 85

60 65

cooperative

247 218 235 231 215

360 292 318 307 288 308 304 274 284 239 237 257 233 267 236 276

Staple food production per capita (kg)

Entire North

185 144 139 143 125

276 255 250 234 229 232 217 207 219 211 215 217 214 191 191 206

per capita (kg)

consumption

Staple food

528 732 830 918 898

321 328

299

123 139

77 89

cooperative

Av. number of households per collective

273 231 241 246 223

251

259 289 273 262 280 288 271 292

Red River delta Staple food production per capita (kg)

216 220

228

264

per capita (kg)

consumption

Staple food

340 557 609 583 589

216 218

207

115 124

80 89

253 214 225 208 189

362

336

204 . 228

264

288

Vinh Phu (Vinh Phuc and Phu Tho) Staple food Staple food production consumption per capita per capita cooperative (kg) (kg)

Av. number of households per collective

1975" [ACMC, CAC, "Major features of cooperatives"], IO

February 1976, 14 (P UBNNTU, hs 160, vv); "Sau 30 Nam," 36.

Note: Blank cells mean no available data. Sources: TCTK, "Nhung Chi Tieu, NN, 1955-1967" [GSO, "Agriculture, 1955-1967''], 1968, tables 59 and 290 (P TCTK, hs 760, vv); TCTK, "So Lieu, TH SX, Phan Phoi, LT, Mien Bac," [GSO, "Staple foods, production, distribution], 30 March 1969, table 45 (P TCTK, hs 761, vv); TCTK, 12 Nam Phat Trien, 557, 559, 590;Vu Nong Nghiep, So Lieu, 73, 87, 125-26;TCTK, Tinh Hinh Phat Trien, no-n; BQLHTXNN, UBNNTU, "BC, Mot So Net, HTX SXNN,

1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

Year

Av. number of households per collective

Table 6. Households per agricultural collective cooperative and annual production per capita in northern Vietnam, 1959-1980

(1)

....

V>

N

....

~

8-:

:::3

.6" '"0

252

The Power of Everyday Politics Table 7. Income sources of an average collective cooperative member Private

Year

Collective cooperative'

Familyb

Other'

Total

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1970 1971 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981

39% 38 38 40 39 36 36 33 35 30 34 36 35 35 29 29 24 28 24

50% 55 54 52 52 53 54 56 54 52 53 53 54 54 61 61 67 61 65

11% 6 8 9 9 10 10 11 12 19 13 11 11 11

61% 61 62 61 61 63 64 67 66 71 66 64 65 65 71 71 76 71 76

10 10 9 10 11

Note: All I96I-I975 data are for northern Vietnam only; 1976-r98I data probably are as well, although the sources do not make this explicit. Percentages are calculated from figures for net yearly or monthly income of an average collective member according to surveys done by officials in northern Vietnam. Due to rounding, the sum of figures for collective and private sources may not equal roo. No data are available for missing years. ' Collective cooperative income is the monetary value of all grain, fruits, vegetables, and other commodities, as well as cash earned from collective work. b Family income includes the monetary value of what a family produces for itself and money earned by selling what it produced

minus production costs.

' Other income includes payment for work done for someone else, interest earnings, proceeds from selling personal possessions, and benefits received from elsewhere (such as relatives and the state). Sources: TCTK, "Nhung Chi Tieu, NN, 1955-1967'' [GSO, "Agriculture, I955-r967''], 1968, table 287 (P TCTK, hs 760, vv); TCTK, 12 Nam Phat Trien, 586; TCTK, "Nhung So Lieu, Doi Song Nang Dan, Mien Bac" [GSO, "Lives of collectivized peasants"], September 1967, 14 (P TCTK, hs 2871, vv); TCTK, Tinh Hinh Phat Trien, r8o; Fforde, Agrarian Question, 218.

Table 8. What is left for an average paddy producer in Red River delta collective cooperatives prior to and during the product contract arrangement Prior to product contracts, 1978-1980

(1) Av. yield (kg/ sao/season)'

(2) 55%

· Producer gets

of (1) for distributionb

(3) 52% of (2)'

83

46

24

During product contracts, 1984-1985 Method 1 Producer gets Quota' (kg/ sao/ season)

Amount beyond quota (kg)

From work points (15-20% of quota)£

Total (kg)

A. Meets but does not exceed quota

104

0

16-21

16-21

B. Exceeds quota by 5%

99

5

15-20

20--25

C. Exceeds quota by 12.5%

93

12

14-18

26--30

D. Exceeds quota by 20%

87

17

13-17

30--34

Quo tag (kg/ sao/ season)

Amount beyond quota (kg)

From work points (15-20% of quota)c

Total (kg)

91 95

0 0

14-18 14-19

14-18 14-19

91 95

4 5

14-18 14-19

18-22 19-24

91 95

11 12

14-18 14-19

25-29 26-31

91 95

18 19

14-18 14-19

32-36 33-38

Scenariosd

Method 2 Producer gets

Scenariosd A. Meets but does not exceed quota B. Exceeds quota by 5% C. Exceeds quota by 12.5%

D. Exceeds quota by 20%

' Calculated from data in appendix I, table I, rounded to nearest whole number. The other 4S percent went to production costs. Nguyen Sinh Cue, Thuc Trang, 2S. ' Based on survey results reported in TCTK, Bao Cao Phan Tich, ro8. d According to survey data circa mid- I98os, 8o percent of villagers with product contracts (khoan san pham) reached or exceeded their contracted production quotas. For villagers exceeding the quota, the typical excess was s to 20 percent beyond the contracted yield. TCTK, Bao Cao Phan Tich, so; and Nguyen Sinh Cue, Nong Nghiep, 31. ' The amount equals the average paddy yield in the Red River delta for I984 and I98S (calculated from data in appendix I, table I) divided by the proportion by which the quota was exceeded in each of the scenarios and rounded to nearest whole number. r The IS-20 percent range is based on several reports about particular villages and provinces in the Red River delta and the situation generally in northern Vietnam. Examples of those reports are Tinh Hoa Binh, Lich Su Phong Trao, 2S4: TCTK, Bao Cao Phan Tich, SI-52; and a statement from the head of the Communist Party's central office for agriculture published in Nhan Dan, 4 December I987, J. g A quota is calculated by the formula specified in official regulations issued to cooperative managerial boards: add approximately IO to IS percent to the average yield during the previous three to five years. Used for these scenarios is the average paddy yield in the Red River delta in I978-I980 (83 kilograms per sao per season). For the regulations, see BQLHTXNNTU, Khoan San Pham, 42; and BNN, "Baa Cao Viec Thuc Hien," s. b

Appendix 2 Distribution to Collective Cooperative Members

Each collective cooperative's produce was divided among the state, the cooperative organization, and the members. The cooperative organization needed some of what cooperative members produced to pay for fertilizers, equipment, irrigation, and so forth, and to compensate the ·chairperson, other officials, mechanics, storehouse managers, and brigade leaders. Cooperatives were also supposed to run primary schools, day care centers, and health clinics, as well as to keep funds available for future investments (quy tich luy) and social welfare (quy cong ich). Government agencies tried to regulate these expenditures and funds. Actual amounts, however, for welfare and investment were usually lower than guidelines required, while production expenses were often higher. Government and party offices repeatedly implored cooperative leaders to reduce production costs by eliminating waste (lang pht). Distribution to members was supposed to reward efficient work and penalize poor work, minimize inequalities, and provide for young, elderly, sickly, and other disadvantaged members. 1 The distribution typically started with each member's production brigade. From the early 1960s, national authorities pressed cooperative leaders to implement the "three contracts" I. The following discussion is based on interviews with villagers and former cooperative officials and on written materials. Some of the latter are Pham Cong, De Quan Ly Tot, 38-54; Tran Ngoc Canh, Cai Tien, 39-59; Cuong Pham, "Management";Thu Tuong Chinh Phu, "Chi Thi, 275-TTg, CT LT, Triet De QD so 75-CP" [prime minister, "Instruction 275, regarding staple crops, implementing decision 75"], I November I974, in Cong Bao, IS November I974, 266--68; Vo Thuc Dong, Chu Nhiem UBNNTU, "Thong Tu, Pharr Phoi LT, HTXSXNN" [Vo Thuc Dong, chairperson, Central Agriculture Commission, "Distributing staple foods in cooperatives"], 30 April I975, I--6 (P UBNNTU, hs I6I, vv).

255

256

The Power of Everyday Politics

system (ba khoan). The three contracts comprised: the amount to be produced; the amount of inputs (seed, fertilizer, draft animals, plows, irrigation, and so on); and the number of workdays. The managerial board and brigade leaders drew up these contracts each season. A brigade that fulfilled the contracts or produced more with fewer inputs and workdays would be rewarded. If a brigade failed to fulfill the contracts-for example, if it produced too little or exceeded the contracted amount of inputs and workdays-it would be penalized. The rewards and penalties were passed on to members in the value set for each of their workdays. The value of a workday in any particular season could vary from one brigade to another within the same collective cooperative. Usually, however, such differences within a cooperative were slight. A brigade that produced more for a lower cost and fewer workdays than was contracted received 5-85 percent of the difference, depending on the size of that difference and on what the managerial board allowed. The board often took some of the difference to augment the cooperative's funds, pay other expenses, and meet its obligations to government agencies. Brigades frequently failed to fulfill their contracts. Brigades that did not come within ro percent of a contract were supposed to pay a fine in workdays, paddy (or other produce), or a combination of both. The fine was not supposed to exceed 50 percent of the shortfall. Leaders in a cooperative could-and frequently did-change a brigade's composition (number of households, amount of land, and so on). The main reason was to maintain relative equality among the brigades and prevent one brigade and its members from becoming significantly better or worse off than the others. Otherwise, a brigade that consistently did better than its contracts required would accumulate surpluses, which was against the rules, and/ or its members would become much better off than others in the cooperative, which went against the Communist Party government's effort to minimize inequalities. The amount of paddy or other collectively produced goods that a member received was based on three components. 2 The calculation of that amount was a complicated affair. The first component was the number of work points (cong diem) a member had earned. A certain number of points, usually ten, equaled one workday (ngay cong). The value of each workday within a brigade equaled the amount of produce available for distribution to its members divided by the total workdays that had been expended. The 2. The system is similar to what Jean Oi reports in State and Peasant, 36-41, about distribution in China's collective farms in the I96os-I970s.

Appendix 2

257

second component was the amount to which a person was entitled (ty le dinh suat giu nguyen). This varied over time and from place to place. Cooperative and brigade leaders set it by using national guidelines (which also prescribed upper and lower limits) and dividing the amount of produce available for distribution by the number of people. Each person was entitled to something. How much depended on age, type of worker, number of workdays, and other criteria. 3 A youngster in school, for instance, was typically entitled to one ration (dinh suat) but one not yet in school was entitled to less, for example, 6o percent of a ration. A "primary worker" (lao dong chinh) was entitled to more than a single ration, for example, 160 percent; a "secondary worker" (lao dong phu) received less but still more than one ration, for example, 120 percent. A primary worker who had, say, 200 workdays was entitled to more than a primary worker who, for instance, had only 160 or 170 work days. 4 The third component was an adjustment to "harmonize" (dieu hoa) what everyone received. The purpose of this and the second component was to take into account how well a member had worked while also paying attention to equality and assuring that everyone received something. An additional rationale behind the third component was the government's effort to control the marketing of paddy and other staple foods. To illustrate the use of these three components, let us consider accounts of the process in Da Ton, a subdistrict in rural Hanoi, in the late 196os-early 1970s. Take, for instance, one villager who was a primary worker. (1) At the end of one paddy season, she had So workdays to her credit. Within her brigade that season, a workday equaled o.So kilograms. Hence, she had earned 64 kilograms of paddy. (2) The ration at that time was 50 kilograms of paddy (10 kg per month for 5 months). As a primary worker, she was entitled to 150 percent of a ration, or 75 kilograms. But the value of her workdays amounted to only 64 kilograms, leaving a difference of II kilograms. (3) A primary worker with no workdays was permitted 90 percent of that difference. The woman, having only So workdays, was permitted, according to local regulations at the time, 70 percent of that difference, or 7. 70 kilograms. This amount she was entitled to purchase from the cooperative's warehouse at the official price. Mter selling a pig her family had J. In the early 1960s, men were typically entided to more than women who did the same or similar work. This may have persisted in some areas but by the late 1960s, gender was not supposed to be a factor. 4. The required number of workdays for female primary workers was usually less than for males. The required number varied over time and, to a lesser extent, from one cooperative to the next.

258

The Power of Everyday Politics

raised, she was able to make that purchase. Thus, in the end, she ended up with 71.70 kilograms. Take the case of another female primary worker. (r) She had no workdays. In her brigade, each workday was worth o.82 kilograms of paddy. Hence, she earned 90.20 kilograms. (2) The ration in this case was 53 kilograms of paddy. She was entitled to 150 percent of a ration, or 79.50 kilograms. Consequently, she had earned ro. 70 kilograms more than she was entitled to. (3) Harmonization regulations allowed her to keep 20 percent of that excess, or 2.14 kilograms of paddy. She had to sell the remaining 8.56 kilograms to the cooperative warehouse at the official price. Permission to keep about 20 percent of what had been earned beyond the amount to which an individual was entitled was supposed to encourage cooperative members to work harder. Regulations did not permit a cooperative member to keep more. Authorities' reasoning seems to have been twofold. First, instead of going to an individual, "excess" paddy earnings was to be distributed through cooperatives and markets that sold paddy at official prices (which were low) to people who had too little paddy. This was in line with the Communist Party government's effort to minimize inequality and make grain and other essential foods available at low prices to people in need. Second, by requiring "excess" paddy to be sold to authorized buyers, authorities hoped to prevent cooperative members from selling that grain on the "unorganized, free market" (thi truong khong to chuc, thi truong tu do), where prices were much higher than official ones. This provision was one of many efforts to control the market for essential commodities. In a household, people totaled what each member received to see what the whole family would get from collective work. Households with few primary workers often earned less paddy than they were entitled to. For instance, a household in the early 1970s with one primary worker, two secondary workers (including a disabled war veteran), and three young children had earned 129 kilograms of paddy during a particular season but was entitled to 325 kilograms. After taking into account "harmonization," the household was permitted to acquire an additional 145 kilograms. Using benefits the war veteran received and cash the family earned by other means, the household had enough to purchase on the official market about no of those kilograms. At about the sanie time, another family in Da Ton with three primary· and two secondary workers had earned about 60 kilograms more than all household members together were entitled to. The family was permitted to keep 12. It had to sell the rest at the official pnce.

Appendix 2

259

This was how distribution within collective cooperatives was supposed to take place. Deviations, however, were common over time and from one cooperative to another. As one might imagine, struggles during the distribution process were pervasive.

Vietnamese Glossary

This glossary has the full spelling ofVietnamese names and terms used in the text and notes (but not the source listings themselves). Not included are the fe~ names for which diacritics are unknown (because the sources in which they appeared did not have diacritics).

An Dlmg an cap an dip cong ctiem an ctong

ban khoan cong vi~c ban c6 n6ng ban nong b~c

an qua nh& ke trbng cay an tr9m amy ba khoan BaVi B;~ch Tnr ban bi thti Ban Bi Thu Trung Vang

binh thti